- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1100/-per month to the respondent-wife.
(2.) Mr. Shambhoo Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, has contended that the marriage had fallen apart within a period of three months. According to him, it is the wife who had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and had deserted the petitionerhusband. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. should be given to the petitioner-husband. Moreover, according to him, the respondent-wife sufferers from epilepsy. Although, he is willing to keep the wife with him, she is refusing to come back. Lastly, according to him, the petitioner does not have sufficient earning capacity to pay the maintenance of Rs.1,100/- per month to the respondentwife. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
(3.) Merely because the respondent-wife has deserted the petitioner-husband after three months of marriage is not a valid ground for denying the maintenance to her. According to the respondent-wife, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner-husband and by his family members. She had claimed that her mother-in-law tried to push her into a well. It is only after hearing her hue and cry that the villagers rushed to her rescue. A woman who is subjected to physical and mental cruelty cannot be expected to live with her husband and with the in-laws'. Therefore, cogent reasons were given by the respondent-wife for staying away from the petitionerhusband. Thus, the petitioner-husband is not justified in claiming that it is the respondent-wife who has deserted him. Hence, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. cannot be given to him.;