S.S.GREWAL,J - (1.) THE petitioner-wife has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 3.7.1987 whereby, on revision, the order granting maintenance of Rs. 150/- p.m. passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Garhshankar dated 13th March, 1987, was set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner-wife is that she was married to Shambhu, respondent, eight or nine years back. Out of this wedlock two daughters and a son were borne but all of them died. At the time of the birth of her son, her parents gave presents which, however, were not up to the expectations of her husband. Her father being a poor man was not in a position to give more articles. Her husband got annoyed on this account. Subsequently he asked the petitioner to bring Rs. 5,000/- from her parents as he wanted to go abroad. This demand could not be satisfied. Because of this reason, he, her mother-in-law Smt. Pura and Smt. Seeta, his brother's wife, started beating her almost daily and she was not provided with bare necessities of life. She was also maltreated, as none of her children could survive and her husband and his relations wanted him to remarry. On 27.7.1985 she was again given severe beating by her husband, her father-in-law and his brother's wife. She was able to send a message to her parents through one Piara concerning her maltreatment. Two days thereafter Pritu, Dharma, Nama and Beant from her village came there and asked her husband and his relations also to why were they maltreating her. Instead of showing any repentance, her husband along with other inflicted injuries to Pritu and his other aforesaid companions. She was turned out of the house by her husband on that day and, since then she was living at the house of her father. Thereafter her husband never cared to see her to take her back, nor did he care to maintain her. She pleaded that she had no source of income to maintain herself and she did not own any property, whereas her husband who was running a shop of shoe-making had an income of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. She prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m. The respondent-husband, in his reply, denied the allegations made against him and pleaded that he had neither neglected, nor refused to maintain the petitioner. It was also pleaded that the application was filed with a view to demoralise him and grab the ornaments and cash already taken away by her when she left the matrimonial home of her own accord, in the company of her relations. He also pleaded that he was living with his brother and worked as a labourer. His wife does not want to live with him, or his brother. The allegations of the petitioner concerning the demand of money, or other articles were specifically denied. It was also asserted by the husband that he was ready to maintain the wife provided she lived with him. It was further pleaded that the respondent was earning shoe-making and he hardly earned his livelihood and that he was not in a position to pay any amount to the wife.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;