A.S.NEHRA,J - (1.) THS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-8-1974 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, by which the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Moga dated 18-9-1971 was upheld.
(2.) PETITIONER Jagir Kaur resident of village Sadha Singh Wala made an application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband Jaswant Singh, who belongs to village Dagru, claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of 400/- per mensum. It is mentioned in the application dated 7-10-1969 that the parties were married about 11/12 years back. They lived together as husband and wife at village Dagru for about 6 or 7 months. No child was born as a result of this wed-lock. Just after the marriage, Jaswant Singh became annoyed with his wife, because she did not bring sufficient dowry and a motor-cycle with her. The husband used to give beating to the wife. Then he turned her out of his house after beating her. The husband Since then, she has been living with her parents. Gurbachan Singh uncle of the petitioner took Panchayat to the house of the respondent several times but he refused to keep her. In this way she has been neglected by the respondent. In his written statement, the respondent denied that he had ever demanded any dowry, or gave any beating to his wife. He is in service at Asansol (West Bengal). The father of the petitioner died as a result of accident. Then she started competing the respondent to leave service and start living in village Dagru which he could not do as he had no other source of income. The petitioner owns about 10 acres of land. After exhausting all efforts to bring her back, the respondent filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner at Asansol.
(3.) MOHINDER Singh AW 1 belongs to village Sadda Singh Wala. He has stated that the went along with the Panchayat to village Dagru to prevail upon Jaswant Singh to keep Jagir Kaur as his wife. Jaswant Singh declined to keep her. He asserted that he would remarry. The witness has further stated that the respondent declined to keep the petitioner with him, when the Panchayat went there for the second time.;