L. RAM SARUP AGGARWAL Vs. DEV KUMARI W/O L. RAM SARUP
LAWS(P&H)-1950-4-14
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 25,1950

L. Ram Sarup Aggarwal Appellant
VERSUS
Dev Kumari W/O L. Ram Sarup Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Ludhiana decreeing to the plaintiff, the wife, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 a month as from 8th July 1943 because of the continued desertion by the husband of the wife. Against this decree, the plaintiff also has cross -objected and claimed that she should be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 a month from 1939.
(2.) SHRIMATI Dev Kumari, plaintiff, was married at Ludhiana to Ram Sarup, defendant, of Jullundur in February 1939. In her plaint she alleged that she lived with her husband after her marriage, but the husband's father, Ghasitu Ram, made improper overtures to her. The two over -acts complained of by the wife (but not in the plaint) are : (1) that her father -in -law asked her to massage him; and (2) on another occasion he asked her to remove her veil and show her face to him. Of this she made a complaint to her husband who resented this allegation and ill -treated her by giving her beating and "subjecting her to various troubles." In about June 1939, the defendant was transferred to Thal in the district of Kohat and she was sent away to her parents' house. During his absence, in Kohat, it is alleged, he never wrote to her in spite of the fact that she sent several letters to him including a registered letter. And during all this period she was not maintained by him. In 1942, an attempt was made by her and her relatives to bring about rapprochement between the plaintiff and the defendant, but this did not succeed, and when later on the husband tried to get married again she along with some friends of the family again went to the defendant at Delhi and tried to bring about conciliation. Her brother then left her at her husband's house at Delhi, but the husband ill -treated her and sent her back soon. She claims Rs. 75 per mensem as maintenance because the husband is getting a salary of Rs. 200 a month. The defendant, Ram Sarup, admitted that after the marriage he and the plaintiff lived as husband and wife for some days. He denied the allegations made against his father, and he pleaded that after his transfer she left his parents' home of her own accord, that as a matter of fact from the very beginning the plaintiff never intended to live in his house as his wife and that she insisted that he should live separately from his parents because her parents were poor and she wanted that they should live on his income. He admitted that on 24th June 1943, the plaintiff of her own accord came to his house in Delhi Cantonment, but her intention, according to him, was to defeat his attempt to getting married again, to disgrace and defame him and not to live with him. During those days, he pleads, she persisted in her previous demands and when he did not accept them, she went away. He also pleaded that he was prepared to take her back.
(3.) THIS suit was brought on 24th August 1944, and in February 1945, the defendant tried to have the suit stayed under the Soldiers' Litigation Act, but in this he did not succeed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.