CHHOTA SINGH Vs. GURDEV KAUR ALIAS BHAGTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, vide an order dated November 28, 1983 (Annexure P.1) awarded Rs. 100/ - per month as maintenance under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, to Gurdev Kaur against her husband Chhota Singh. It was held by the trial Magistrate, on appraisal of evidence, that Chhota Singh had neglected to maintain his wife. The husband's revision against the order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide an order dated May 3, 1984 (Annexure P.2). The finding of the trial Court was affirmed that Gurdev Kaur was not being maintained by Chhota Singh without any reasonable ground Chhota Singh has filed the instant petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order of trial Magistrate and the revisional Court mainly on the ground that Gurdev Kaur has stated in trial proceedings that she was willing to live with her husband but he was refusing to maintain her and that the present petitioner had then offered to take Gurdev Kaur with him.

(2.) A persual of the impugned orders shows that no such ground was taken by Chhota Singh either before the trial Magistrate or before the revisional Court. On the contrary the concurrent findings of both the Courts are that Chhota Singh had neglected to maintain Gurdev Kaur without any justification. Assuming that during the course of trial proceedings the parties may have at one stage tried for reconciliation but it is manifest that the proposal never went through. The fact remains that there is no reasons to dislodge the concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below that Chhota Singh had wilfully neglected to maintain Gurdev Kaur.

(3.) THE learned petitioner's counsel relied upon Phula Khan v. Emperor, 16, (1915) Criminal Law Journal Reports 86. In that case the wife was prepared to live with the husband and the latter had expressed willingness to maintain her. The trial Magistrate had opined that it was difficult for him to decide whether it is the husband who refused to maintain the wife or whether the latter had refused to be maintained. In such circumstances the wife was not considered to be entitled to receive maintenance from the husband. This judgment has no relevancy to the present case. The Courts below have held in one voice that the husband has refused to maintain the wife. In such circumstances it cannot be said that merely because at one stage of the trial the parties had tried for reconciliation it was ground enough to disable the wife to seek maintenance from her husband under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking this view of the matter the present petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.