KLSHORE SIHGH LODHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Harbans Kaur had moved an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from her husband alleging that the parties had married about 13 months prior to the filing of this application and they lived together for about 11 months where after the non -petitioner took her to her father's house and left her there. It was also alleged that during the time the petitioner lived with her husband, the non -petitioner's sisters used to scold her on the ground that she had brought very little dowery. The non -petitioner also used to beat her on this ground. It was also alleged that he was in the habit of drinking and torturing the petitioner and at times even did not provide her with food. Her case further was that he used of demand for further dowery in the form of hard cash amounting to Rs. 10,000/ -, a radio set a motor cycle and other articles and when the petitioner showed her inability to comply with his demands, he used to beat her. At last, the petitioner was forced to assure the non -petitioner that on the next harvest, he may take her to her father's place and there she may get the things demanded by him. The case of the petitioner further was that about 2 -1/4 months before the filing of the application, the non -petitioner took her to her father's house. There the petitioner tried to convince him that whatever her father could have given, he has already given but the non -petitioner got annoyed with her and gave her a blow with a burning log of wood, as a result of which, her body was scorched and her right hand got fractured. The petitioner goes on to allege that after giving her this beating, the non -petitioner told her that he will take another wife and that he has already left her. She also alleged that even thereafter, her father with other members of the Panchayat went to the house of the non -petitioner to request him to take her back but he refused. Her case further was that the non -petitioner had never cared for her maintenance and she has no indepedent means to maintain herself. On account of the ignorance or refusal of the non -petitioner to maintain her, she was entitled to claim maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C and she claimed a sum of Rs. 400/ - p.m.
(2.) IN reply, the husband non -petitioner admitted the fact of marriage but denied the other allegations against him. He alleged that he had kept the petitioner with love and care and was still prepared to keep her with him but she had refused to live with him without any reasonable cause. He also alleged that the petitioner's father wanted to keep the non -petitioner as his 'Ghar Janwai' to which he was not agreeable and when he declined to do so, the petitioner's brother Prasan Singh got annoyed and wanted to burn him alive with a burning log of wood on which the petitioner intervened. He also alleged that he, was ready to take the petitioner back and had also taken the Panchayat to the petitioner's father's house but they refused to send her and the petitioner also declined to come with him. He also alleged that the petitioner's father had two Murabbas of canal land and the petitioner herself had sufficient means to maintain herself, of course, without specifying what those means are. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Magistrate, came to the conclusion that the petitioner herself had refused without any reasonable cause to live with the non -petitioner despite his offer to maintain her on the condition of her living with him. He was of the opinion that the petitioner had failed to establish the cruelty alleged by her. He was further of the view that in the proceedings Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned District Judge had held that the petitioner had sufficient means to maintain herself and, therefore, also in view of this finding, she is not entitled to any maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He, accordingly, dismissed her application. It is against this order of the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Srikaranpur, dated 18 -12 -84 that the petitioner has filed the present revision.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.;