BADRI NARAIN Vs. LAXMI GEHLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner husband against the order dated 22-10-1992 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 420/80 by which he partly accepted the application filed by the respondent wife under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and ordered that the petitioner husband would pay Rs. 1000.00 (Rs. one thousand only) as maintenance allowance to the respondent wife and her daughter aged 12 years with the effect from 13-10-1998, the date of presentation of that application. #

(2.) The necessary facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows :- The respondent wife filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Ajmer on 13-10-1988 alleging inter alia that she was married with the petitioner husband on 23-6-1978 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of that wedlock, on 13-4-1979, daughter, namely, Mamta was born and on 24-4-1981, another daughter Santosh was born, but unfortunately, Santosh died on 8-10-1985. It was further alleged in the application that after marriage, she lived with the petitioner husband at various places, namely, Dhandra, Kota, and Jodhpur, but at all places, the petitioner husband used to behave with her in a cruel manner and he used to torture, harass, beat and abuse her. It was further alleged in the application that in the month of Feb. 1980, the respondent wife was beaten by her husband petitioner and thereafter she was shunted out from the house and she was left by the petitioner husband at Ajmer and since then, she started living with her parents. It was further alleged in the application that father of the petitioner-husband died on 16-6-1980 and, thereafter, Jeeja of the petitioner-husband and brother of the petitioner husband came to take the respondent wife back and she went to Jodhpur and lived there till August, 1980. Thereafter she was again beaten by the petitioner-husband and the petitioner-husband also threatened her that he would contact second marriage. Since the behaviour of the petitioner husband was cruel and he had beaten the respondent-wife so many times, therefore, it has been alleged by the respondent-wife in para No. 6 of the application that in no circumstances it was possible for her now to live with the petitioner- husband. The further case of the respondent-wife was that the petitioner-husband is a Senior Teacher in the Central School and is earning Rs. 3500.00 per month and on the contrary, she had no means to maintain herself and her daughter, and therefore, she has claimed that she may be awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.1500.00 p.m. for herself and her daughter. The petitioner-husband filed a reply to the application filed by the respondent-wife under S. 125, Cr.P.C. on 2-2-1989 admitting the fact of marriage and also admitting the fact that two daughters were born, out of them, one had died and also admitting the fact that the respondent-wife was living with her parents house along with her daughter, but all the allegations pertaining to cruelty, beating, maltreatment and harassment have been denied by the petitioner-husband and he has also stated that he went twice to take respondent-wife back, but she refused to come. It was further alleged by the petitioner-husband that it was wrong to say that his monthly income was Rs. 3500.00, but he was earning only Rs. 2523.00 p.m. He has further alleged that since 16-8-1980, the respondent-wife did not come to his house and she was doing knitting job and, therefore, she had sufficient means to maintain herself and her daughter. It was further alleged by the petitioner-husband that the main dispute between the parties was that respondent-wife wanted that the petitioner-husband should live in her parents' house as Ghar Jamai, but it was not possible for him. Hence, it was prayed that the application filed by the respondent-wife under S. 125, Cr. P.C. be dismissed. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. Four witnesses were produced by the respondent-wife and six witnesses were produced by the petitioner-husband. After analysing the evidence of both the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer through his impugned order dated 22-10-1992 partly allowed the application of the respondent-wife in the manner as stated above holding inter alia :-

(3.) In this revision, the following submissions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband :-