HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Ramabhadran, J. -
(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Chamba, wherein he has recomanended that an order under Section 488, Cr. P. C., an favour of Mt. Chanchoo be set aside.
(2.) Mt. Chanchoo asked for maintenance on the ground that her husband, Madho (whom she had married about 14 years previously), had taken to drink and contracted illicit intimacy with one Mt. Naro and finally beat her and turned her out on 4th Bhado, 2009.
(3.) These allegations were denied by Madho. His case was that Mt. Chanchoo left his house during his absence and went back to her father's house and refused to return despite his efforts to get her back. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, found in favour of Mt. Chanchoo and directed Madho to pay her Rs. 15/p. m. as maintenance. Madho went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, who was of the opinion that the Magistrate's order could not be supported. He has pointed out and quite rightly that, unless it is proved that the husband has refused or neglected to maintain his wife, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to award maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C. The learned Judge has pointed out that Madho took a Panchayat to his father-in-law's house in an attempt to bring back Mt. Chanchoo, but she refused to go back to him.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.