CHHEDILAL SINGH Vs. SRIMATI BHANUMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of proceedings under Sec. 488, Criminal Procedure Code. By the order sought to be revised, applicant Chhedi Lal Singh has been directed to pay to the opposite-party Shrimati Bhanumati maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month with effect from the 2nd of April, 1968. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having scrutinised the material before me, I find myself unable to maintain the order of the learned Magistrate.

(2.) There was no controversy that Bhanumati had been married to the applicant somewhere about 1960. The Application for grant of maintenance under Sec. 488, Criminal Procedure Code was made by Bhanumati on the 2nd of April, 1968 on the allegation, inter alia, that she had been treated cruelly by the applicant and had been sent back to her father's place after depriving her of her ornaments and, further, that ever since then the applicant had refused to maintain her. The claim made by Bhanumati was contested by the applicant on various assertions one of which was to the effect that she had become a disciple of a Naga Baba known as Purnanand and was not willing to discharge her marital duties towards the applicant, that thereafter a Panchayat in the 'biradari' had been held in which the marital tie between the parties had been dissolved, leaving them both to marry again whomsoever they liked. After recording evidence led by the parties, the learned Magistrate found against the applicant and directed payment of maintenance as stated earlier in this order.

(3.) In the course of a revision in the Court of Session, two contentions, in the main, were raised. The first was that the learned Magistrate had not properly appreciated the evidence bearing on the question of dissolution of the marriage tie between the parties and the second was that the applicant was a minor studying in class VIII and did not have means of his own to pay maintenance to Bhanumati. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate on the first contention and, as regards the second contention, the learned Judge recorded the view that the mere fact that the applicant was a minor did not absolve him from his liability to maintain Bhanumati. The learned Judge referred to a decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in the case of Prabhulal Vs. Parwatibai AIR 1952 Madhya Bharat 96 : (1952 Cri LJ 868) , and also to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of In re: Kandasami Chetty (1926) 27 Cri LJ 350 in which it was laid down that in proceedings under Sec. 488 Criminal Procedure Code, the word 'means' was not intended to be confined to visible means, such as real property or definite employment. It was observed that if a man was healthy and able-bodied, he must be taken to have the 'means' to support his wife.