BANTI DEVI Vs. MOTI RAM
LAWS(HPH)-1991-10-21
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on October 09,1991

BANTI DEVI; MOTI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
MOTI RAM; BANTI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This judgment will dispose of both the Criminal Revision Petitions. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 75 of 1988, Banti Devi-Petitioner wife--has prayed for enhancement of maintenance allowance to Rs. 500 per month from Rs. 150 per month awarded to her vide judgment dated 16th January, 1988 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar. In the other Criminal Revision Petition No. 104 of 1990 Moti Ram-Petitioner husband--has challenged the same judgment and prayed for dismissal of the petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Banti Devi for maintenance.
(2.) The brief facts are that on 28th September, 1985 Banti Devi had filed a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance of Rs. 500 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar, alleging that she was married to Moti Ram ten years ago according to Hindu rites. It is further averred that from May, 1978, Moti Ram started maltreating and beating her without any reason and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home in the year 1980. According to her, since then she has been residing with her parents. She had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed and decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed in her favour by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul and Spiti Districts at Mandi, on 10th May, 1983. Her allegations were that thereafter on 20-4-1984, Moti Ram had contracted second marriage with one Champa Devi. Having come to know this fact, the Petitioner filed petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation on the ground of second marriage by Moti Ram which was also allowed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, vide decree dated 12th October, 1984 Both the decrees, for restitution of conjugal rights as well for judicial separation, were ex parte as Moti Ram failed to appear despite service. Banti Devi had further alleged that she had no source of livelihood whereas Moti Ram is a rich man and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month. In his reply, Moti Ram had admitted that Banti Devi was his legally wedded wife and was residing with her parents from 1980 at her own sweet will. He had denied all other allegations and had expressed his willingness to keep Banti Devi with him and maintain her.
(3.) On the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court held Banti Devi entitled to maintenance on the ground that Moti Ram had neglected her as he did not make any effort to bring Banti Devi back to the matrimonial home after 1980 or give her any maintenance.;


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