VENA RAM Vs. ANJI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. R. ARORA, J, This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated June 2, 1988, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri, by which the learned Magistrate allowed the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. filed by Smt. Anji Devi and awarded a maintenance of Rs. 350/-per month to her.

(2.) SMT. Anji Devi, on July 21, 1982, filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. against Vena Ram - the husband - in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri. It was alleged in the application that she was married to Vena Ram on April 22, 1977, and remained with the non-applicant Vena Ram upto June, 1981. Out of the wed-lock, a female child Sangita was born on August 14, 1979 and a son Praveen was born on October 4,1981. The non-applicant Vena Ram used to give beatings to her and in the month of 'vaishak' of the year 1981," she alongwith her husband had gone to attend the marriage of the cousin of her husband. Thereafter the non-applicant left her with her mother and at that time she was pregnant. Thereafter, he, by his letter dated June 14, 1981, sent a Talaknama to her. A photostat copy of the letter was produced on the record by the applicant Mst. Anji Devi. While living with her mother, the non-applicant asked her that he will send some amount to bear the expenses in the delivery and he will take her after the delivery. Neither the non-applicant took her with him nor did he send any amount and, therefore, she has been forced to live with her parents and as she is unable to maintain herself and her two children, therefore, an amount of Rs 400/- per month as maintenance allowance was prayed to be allowed to her. The non-applicant contested the application and denied all the allegations made by the applicant. He has, also, contended that she is a lady of loose character and, therefore, by mutual agreement, "chhu-TAPA", as prevalent in the community, was taken from her and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance allowance. The applicant, in support of her application, produced herself as PW 1, Teja Ram PW 2, and Lada PW 3. The non-applicant, in support of his case, produced himself as DW 1, Babar, DW 2 and Lal Das DW 3. The learned Magistrate, after consideration of the evidence produced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled for the maintenance allowance as the non-applicant has failed to prove the case of loose character against the applicant. The learned Magistrate was, also, of the view that the applicant is unable to maintain herself. The learned Magistrate was, also, of the opinion that the non-applicant failed to establish the plea of divorce with mutual consent between the parties. He, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs. 350/-, per month to the applicant as the maintenance allowance.

(3.) IN the result, the revision-petition, filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 350/- per month to Rs. 300/- per month and the petitioner is allowed to pay the arrears of the maintenance allowance in six instalments along with the monthly maintenance allowance on or before 10th of each month. .