SMT. MANGAL DEVI THAPLYAL Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-1994-7-99
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 22,1994

Smt. Mangal Devi Thaplyal Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) Smt. Mangal Devi Thaplyal filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of Manorath Prasad Thaplyal, the present revisionist stating that she was married in the year 1970 and out of this wedlock three daughters aged about 8 years 5 years and 11/2 years (at the time of application) were born. The revisionist was annoyed as three daughters one after the other were born and, therefore he st ed ill treating his wife saying that she did not bring enough dowry at the time of marriage. Subsequently he pressurised his wife to divorce him so that he may go in for a second marriage. The wife did not agree to it. This further annoyed him. In the nights of 5.7.80 and 8.7.80 she and her daughters were severely beaten. In the morning of 9.7.80 at about 6.00 AM she and her daughters were forcibly turned out of the house. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.
(2.) The husband filed the written statement contesting the application denying the allegations made in the application and stating that she left the house on her own will and that she wanted to give education to her daughters at Dehradun while residing with her father. Other allegations were also made. The trial court believed the applicant's version of the case and granted her maintenance allowance in all Rs. 240/- per month for the applicant and her daughters. Aggrieved by this judgment Manorath Prasad Thaplyal filed a revision which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 105/81. The revisional court was of the opinion that the trial court has not recorded any finding as to whether the applicant Smt. Mangla Devi is unable to maintain herself and the trial court committed error in granting maintenance without deciding this question. The revision was allowed. The judgment and order passed by the trial court was set aside and the case w remanded back to the trial court for fresh trial in accordance with the law and in the light of the observations made in the body, the judgment. Aggrieved by this judgment the applicant has filed this revision.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record.;


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