MALATI SAHU Vs. VHAGYADHAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Malati Sahu is the wife of the Opp-party Vhagyadhar Sahu. She filed this revision petition under Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) assailing the order passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur (S.D.J.M.) rejecting her application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, shorn of unnecessary details, was that she married the opp. party in the month of Baisakh, 1978? according to Hindu customs and rites; they lived happily as husband and wife for about two years; a son was born to them in 1980. Thereafter the opp. party wanted her to get Rs. 5,000/- from her parents since the dowry given at the time of her marriage was inadequate. When she protested he assaulted her and drove her out from his house. A complaint was lodged with the Executive Magistrate and the police was directed to enquire into the matter. On the intervention of the police and local gentries the dispute was patched up on the opp.party and his family members undertaking that there will be no further incident of assault or ill-treatment to her. Accepting the assurance in good faith she returned to her marital home. After about two weeks she was again ill-treated, assaulted and forced to leave the house in August, 1980. She alleged that her ornaments were taken away and the child was left with her. Since then she had been living with her parents wholly depending on them. Sometimes in 1983 when the wife of the younger brother of the opp.-party died the petitioner was taken to her husbands house for the Sudhi Ceremony and immediately after the ceremony was over she was asked to leave the house with the threat that she tried to return she will be murdered. It was the further case of the petitioner that the opp. party has eight to ten acres of good cultivable land on which different crops and vegetables are grown, he has also some fruit bearing trees from which he earns a substantial income. His total income, according to the petitioner, is about Rs.7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. Though he has the means the opp. party has never cared to maintain the petitioner and her child. The petitioner has no separate income to maintain herself and her child. Under such compelling circumstances she filed the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month for herself and her minor child.

(3.) The opp.party contested the case. He admitted his Illarriage with the petitioner and the birth of the male child out of the wedlock. He denied the allegations of assault, ill-treatment and refusal to give her the ornaments which her parents had given to her. His case was that after the birth of the child the petitioner wanted him to get separated from his parents which suggestion the opp.party bluntly refused. Then she left his house on her own accord; in spite of repeated efforts by him she did not agree to return to his house. In essence, his case was that the petitioner deserted him without any reasonable cause. He stated in the counter to the petition under Section 123 Cr. P.C. that he is ready and willing to take back the petitioner and the child to his house.