- (1.) The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the courts below granting maintenance to the respondent RSA No. 3059 of 2005 (2) wife and to the minor son.
(2.) The marriage of the appellant with plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein was solemnised on 11.12.1988 at village Burj, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. On 29.12.1993, one male child was born out of the said wed-lock. As per the case set up by the plaintiff she was thrown out of the matrimonial home with the minor son in September, 1994 after she was beaten up. Thereafter, husband has not taken care of the plaintiff, therefore, she sought maintenance by filing the present suit, for herself and for her minor son. Both the courts below have found that plaintiff No.1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance. The defendant- appellant had not dared to step into the witness box to deny even the fact of refusal to maintain the plaintiffs.
(3.) In second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment and decree dated 1.8.1997 in proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Vide the said decree, wife was directed to resume cohabitation with the appellant. The appellant has also relied upon an order passed in proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein it has been held that the wife has failed to cohabitate with the appellant. In view of the said orders it is sought to be contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any maintenance from the appellant.;