TULSI RAM Vs. PARO BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC is directed against the order dated January 10,1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, in criminal revision No. 14 of 1989 (Paro Bai v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and Criminal Revision petition No. 18 of 1989 (Tulsi Ram v. Paro Bai).

(2.) Smt. Paro Bai filed an application Under Section 125, Cr. PC for grant of maintenance against the petitioner Tulsi Ram in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh. The notice of his petition was given to the petitioner. The applicant-non-petitioner Smt. Paro Bai, in support of her case, produced hereself as AW 1, Fakir Chand AW 2, Prem Das AW 3 and Wazir Chand AW 4. The petitioner-non-applicant Tulsi Ram produced himself as NAW 1 Gurbachansing NAW 2 and Mahendrasingh NAW 3. The learned trial Court, after consider the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that as the petitioner and his other relatives treating her with cruelty and tried to burn her with electric wire, therefore she is entitled not to live with her in-laws and has righly been living with her parents. The learned trial Court, therefore, awarded a maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from the date of order, i.e., with effect from April 21, 1989. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, Smt. Paro Bai filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of Smt. Paro Bai (wife) that the amount of the maintenance, awarded by the trial Court, is on a lower side and it should be enhanced. It was, also, contended that the learned lower Court should have awarded the maintenance with effect from the date of application and not from the date of the order. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the husband Tulsi Ram that Smt. Paro Bai is living separately without any just cause and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The learned Aditional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 10,1990, dismissed the revision petition filed by Tulsi Ram, but, however, allowed the revision petition filed by Paro Bai and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 200/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month and made it payable from the date of application, i.e., with effect from October 6, 1986. It is against this judgment that the present petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC has been filed.