- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This revision by the husband has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21-4-1990 passed by Km. Sadhna Rani the then IVth Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 46/xi/90 under Section 125, Cr. P. C, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the opposite party w. e. f. 19-2-1988, the date of filing the application.
(2.) IT has not been disputed that the opposite party is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and that they were married in the year 1978. The application was moved upon the allegations that after some time of the marriage the revisionist started ill treating the opposite party. He used to take intoxicants, gamble and have relations with other women. The opposite party objected to these habits of the revisionist whereupon she was harassed, cruelly treated, beaten and was not given food to eat. He also used to taunt that she did not bring enough dowry in the marriage. He pressurised her to bring Rs. 10. 000/- from her father as he wanted- to make a house. Her father is a class III employee in the railways and for that reason he was unable to satisfy the demand of the revisionist, with the result that his tieatment towards her became more cruel. She was threatened. Her signatures were taken on two blank papers and then on 6-12-1987 Natthi Lal elder brother of the revisionist, his wife, Chhunni Lal and his wife brought her to the house of her father and left her there. The revisionist did not come to take her. On 14-12-1987 she sent a notice through a counsel to the revisionist but even then he did not come to take her. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month stating that the revisionist is earning Rs. 1,500 per month -.
(3.) THE revisionist contested this application and denied the allegations regarding cruel treatment and harassment of the opposite party. He also denied having made any dowry demand from the opposite party. According to him the opposite party is in employment at Mathura and is also doing teaching work. She does not want to leave that employment and live with the revisionist. Since the opposite party has means to maintain herself she is not entitled for maintenance. He also stated that he is a casual labourer and is not able to earn more than Rs. 700 per month. He also offered to keep the opposite party with himself alleging that she should come and reside with him and perform her material obligations. The Court below upon a consideration of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that having sufficient means the revisionist has neglected and refused to maintain the opposite party and granted the applica tion as stated above. Hence this revision.;