KAMLESH Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. While allowing the maintenance to the daughter, the Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 18. 09. 1998, mainly on the ground that the petitioner wife is able to maintain herself and further she has been deliberately and intentionally not living with the respondent husband. A further revision filed before the revisional court by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 12. 05. 1999. Hence the present petition challenging both the above orders impugned, denying maintenance to the petitioner wife.

(2.) AS has come on record, two real sisters were married in the same family to two brothers respectively. The younger sister of the petitioner, who was married to younger brother of respondent husband, died and on a charge sheet been filed against the husband of the younger sister of the petitioner and brother of the respondent husband after conviction has also been sentenced accordingly for 10 years imprisonment by the Trial Court. The trial against other in laws in the same incident is alleged to still pending before the Trial Court. Under such conditions, there was no option for the petitioners to leave the house of her in-laws with her minor daughter. There is also no proof that the petitioner is able to maintain herself. The word `maintain' used under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , has to be taken in the broader sense, in so much as, that the petitioner should be able to maintain herself decently to live a comfortable life, not necessary a luxurious life.