Ajeet Kumar Bedi vs Raj Rani

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 1.2.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, who set aside the order dated 20.8.1994 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tohana, who dismissed the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. of Smt. Raj Rani respondent. The learned Sessions Judge, on the contrary, allowed the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. of the wife against her husband and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the order of the Trial Court besides Rs. 550/- as costs of the revision and this time petitioner Ajeet Kumar Bedi was not satisfied with the order of the learned Sessions Judge and he has filed the present revision.

Smt. Raj Rani filed a petition u/s 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband Ajeet Kumar Bedi alleging that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the month of March, 1974 at Tohana and her father gave sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage worth Rs. 55,000/-. The petitioner Shri Ajeet Kumar Badi is a man of greedy nature. He is in the habit of taking liquor and under the influence of liquor he used to beat her. He is working as a teacher in a school. The wife alleges that after the death of her mother-in-law her husband along with his father, brother and sister started making a demand of Rs. 5,000/- and a scooter. When she failed to satisfy the demand of her husband, the latter started giving her beating. So much so her husband levelled allegations against her to the effect she was not fit giving birth to a child. The father and brother of the respondent took panchayat to the house of the petitioner for rehabilitation but no effect. Rather the demand was repeated by the petitioner that the respondent should pay Rs. 5,000/- in cash besides a scooter.

Notice of the application was given to the husband, who con tested the same. He took a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, on the plea that application u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was pending between the parties. On merits, it was asserted by the petitioner that the parents of the respondent did not give dowry articles as alleged by her. She has withdrawn from his society without any reasonable cause or excuse. The respondent-wife leaving the matrimonial home had taken all valuable clothes and jewellery. She has independent source of income. According to the respondent, in fact, Anil Kumar son of the sister of the respondent was studying at Nabha. He was residing with the petitioner, who used to bear all the expenses of that boy. The sister of the respondent and her husband were at Nabha. They compelled the parties to this petition that they would get their son admitted in 10+2 class at Nabha. The petitioner refused to keep Anil Kumar at Nabha. On 18.5.1987 when the petitioner was away to his school, the sister of the respondent in the company of her husband took her to Tohana. With the above defence the petitioner Shri Ajeet Kumar Bedi had prayed before the Trial Court for the dismissal of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C.

In support of their case both the parties led evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings the learned Magistrate dismissed the application and the reasons of dismissal are contained in para No. 9 of the order dated 20.8.1994 which I quote as below :

"The present case will be examined in the light of this provision of law. Learned Counsel for respondent has further contended that since petitioner refused without any sufficient cause to live with her husband, as such, Court should decline to pass an order of maintenance. In support of his contention, he has quoted Raghbir Singh v. Krishna 1982 PLR (P&H) 768 :1983 All Indian HLR 254 (P&h). It is held that "Court would decline to pass an order of maintenance in favour of the wife if the wife refused without any sufficient cause to live with the husband." There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in this ruling. Learned Counsel for respondent has further contended that in para 5 of the petition, it is pleaded that respondent gave beating to the applicant but no specific date and time has been mentioned. Hence the allegations are vague. It cannot be said that the respondent gave beating to the petitioner as alleged by her. Learned Counsel for respondent in support of his contention has pressed into service Smt. Krishna Rani and Krishna Devi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1991(1) RCR (P&H) 701. In this case complaint was filed by the wife against her husband on the allegations that she was given beatings by her husband and kerosene oil was also sprinkled on her. However, no date, time and place of occurrence was mentioned. It was held by the Hon''ble High Court that allegations were vague and no case was made out. The ratio of this judgment fully applies to the facts of this case. The allegations as levelled by applicant against the respondent of beatings are vague and her statement cannot be believed. It is evident from Ex. D 2 that petitioner and respondent have joint account in Punjab National Bank. It is further evident from Ex.D 1 that petitioner is a matriculate. Petitioner has failed to prove that she has sufficient cause for withdrawal from the society of the respondent. Since petitioner has withdrawn from the society of respondent without any sufficient cause as such I find no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed."

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate Smt. Raj Rani filed the first revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, who vide order dated 1.2.1996 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and accepted the revision and granted the maintenance and costs as stated above and the reasons of reversal are contained in para Nos. 9,10,11 and 12 of the impugned judgment, which I again reproduce as follows:

"9. The estrangement between the parties is obviously there. Let us see what is the cause of this estrangement and which side is more responsible for the situation between the parties. As stated earlier, the wife has set up, a definite case that she was subjected to demand of cash and scooter and being unable to meet that, she was beaten and turned out of the house. This ground was rejected by the Court below simply on the reasons that the allegations of beating were vague as no date or time of beating was specified by the wife and reliance was placed on the decision in 1991(1) RCR 701; Smt. Krishana Rani v. State of Punjab.

The authority relates to a case u/s 498A, IPC. The Hon''ble High Court quashed that case against the husband and his relations in exercise of its powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The standards of proof required to prove a criminal case u/s 498-A of IPC is certainly different than the one required to establish a case for maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. In other words, whatever holds good for the decision of a case u/s 498A, IPC cannot always be applied to the proceedings u/s 125, Cr.P.C. The learned lower Court, therefore, fell into error in relying upon the decision in Krishna''s case (supra). The husband and wife live in one house. If relations between them proceed smoothly, it is alright, but if they developed differences and started quarrelling with each other and one party gives beating to the other, it is not possible for them to make note of the date and time of such happening. It is not without significance to note that on the allegations of dowry demand etc. the wife and filed a criminal complaint against the husband and that complaint is pending against him and his relations. This fact has been admitted by the husband. In such circumstances, the case of the wife on the point of maltreatment received by her at the hands of the husband on account of dowry demand etc. cannot be said to be baseless. The parties were married in 1974and they lived together for more than a decade. It is explained by the wife that so far the mother of the husband was alive, she did not allow the husband to maltreat the wife. The misfortunes of the wife started with the death of the mother of the husband. This case is of its own type where the mother-in-law used to shield the daughter-in-law. It is for this reason that this marital discard came to occur quite late in the day.

The husband has given the explanation that the wife left the house because he had refused to keep the son of his wife''s sister Anil Kumar at Nabha. It is accepted by the wife and said boy lived with them for a year and failed in his studies. It does not commend to reason that the wife left the house of the husband simply because he refused to keep her nephew. After all, she had been living with her husband for more than a decade. The reasons given by the husband are hardly a ground for the wife to live away from him.

The husband had filed a petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but then he withdrew it. If at all, the husband was willing to take the wife to the matrimonial fold, he would not have withdrawn that case u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and he would have obtained a decision on it on merits."

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge Shri Ajeet Kumar Bedi petitioner has filed the presdent revision which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. J.C. Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the respondent and with their assistance I have gone through the record of this case.

It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the reasons adopted by the trial Magistrate were weighty and correct as compared to the reasons adopted by the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. It was submitted by Mr. Nagpal that the allegations of the wife with regard to cruelty and alleged desertion are totally vague and false and there was no occasion on the part of the husband to neglect the respondent Smt. Raj Rani. According to Mr. Nagpal the real bone of contention was that the son of the sister of Smt. Raj Rani was living with the parties. Petitioner Ajeet Kumar Bedi was not inclined to keep the boy in the house. It is common case of the parties that out of this wedlock no child was born. The respondent Smt. Raj Rani was not happy with this idea of the petitioner and for that reason she left the matrimonial home of he own and for this reason the respondent Smt. Raj Rani is not entitled to any maintenance and as such the order of the learned Magistrate should be restored by reversing the order of learned Sessions Judge. On the contrary, the learned Counsel Mr. A.S. Kalra has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge by stating that there were no earthy reasons for the wife to withdraw from the society of her husband. In fact, the petitioner had been maltreating his wife right from the very beginning. He was a greedy person and was not satisfied with the dowry articles. The entire trouble arose when the mother-in-law of the respondent died because during her life time she was preventing the petitioner from maltreating the respondent.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have already quoted the reasons given by the Trial Court as well as First Revisional Court and I am of the view that the probabilities discussed by the learned Sessions Judge are weighty as compared to the reasons advanced by the learned Magistrate. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, the Magistrate may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife not exceeding Rs. 500/ - in the whole. According to Sub-clause (4) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. no wife shall be entitled to receive any allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband for if the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent. In other words, Section 125, Sub-clause (1) and Sub-clause (4) are inter-related. If wife succeeds by proving neglect or refusal to be maintained by her husband, she is entitled to maintenance, which allowance of maintenance claimed can be defeated by the husband by showing that his wife is living in adultery or there was no sufficient ground for the wife to withdraw from his company or the husband and wife are living separately with mutual consent. With the above relevant provisions of law it has to be seen now whether the respondent had withdrawn from the society of the petitioner or the wife had been neglected by the petitioner-husband or such circumstances had been created by the petitioner compelling the wife to live separately. The case set up by the petitioner before this Court is that respondent Smt. Raj Rani wanted to rehabilitate Anil Kumar in the matrimonial home and this proposal was objected by the petitioner, who was not inclined to accept this proposal. The respondent bore a grudge and she left the company of the petitioner. The submission of Mr. Nagpal does not stand to the test of probabilities. In this case admittedly the marriage between the parties took place in the month of March, 1974. The case set up by the respondent is that so long her mother-in-law was alive in the house, she could not be turned out from the house because of her intervention and every problem arose with the death of her mother-in-law. It is also the common case of the parties that out of this wedlock no child has born. Whether the defence taken by the petitioner that respondent wanted to bring the son of her sister in the house is prima facie probable or not, has to be seen by this Court. It cannot be swallowed by this Court why the sister of the respondent would part her male child to the parties to this petition. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the sister of the respondent was not in a position to maintain her child or there were sufficient male issues with the sister of the respondent and for that reason she wanted to give one child to the parties to this petition. It appears that the petitioner is just making an excuse of the fact that no child is born out of this wedlock unfortunately. According to the petitioner the respondent had withdrawn her society somewhere in the year 1984, whereas the genuine conduct on the part of the petitioner should be that he never tried to rehabilitate the respondent. No amount of maintenance etc. was sent. No panchayat was taken by the petitioner to bring back the respondent. One effort was made by the petitioner of course, when he filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent. The petitioner was never sincere in the prosecution of that petition. He did not ask for any adjudication from the Matrimonial Court. He allowed his petition to fail when it was dismissed as withdrawn. It is also not believable that in our society a woman would try to leave the house of her husband so easily. A woman would always try to get protection from the house of her husband and in the present case the probability lies that respondent would always try to live in the house of the petitioner as she was not having any child in her lap. Respondent is not an earning hand. She has read only upto matriculate. This is a great probability which compels me to think that it was the petitioner who did not like the respondent and made an excuse for turning her out. It is equally possible that since the petitioner did not get any child out of this wedlock he thought proper to turn out the respondent from the house so that ultimately the parties might compromise for a mutual divorce paving way to the petitioner to enter into a second marriage. From the record I have not been able to come to this conclusion that it was Smt. Raj Rani who withdrew herself from the company of the petitioner. Once the defence of Shri Ajeet Kumar Bedi fails, there is specific averment made by the respondent that petitioner was a greedy person and after the death of her mother-in-law he started maltreating her. Under these circumstances if the wife has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner, it cannot be said that she had withdrawn without any sufficient reason.

While discussing the scope of revision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had repeatedly held that revisional power of the High Court should not be exercised unless there exists an illegality in the judgment or order or unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice. A possible difference of opinion even formulated by the High Court qua the opinion formulated by the first Revisional Court is not justified in invoking the powers of revision. It cannot be said after the reading of the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge that he had grossly erred in appreciating the evidence led by the parties with regard to the plea of the petitioner that his wife had withdrawn from his company without any sufficient cause.

Resultantly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision is devoid of any merit. It also cannot be said that the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent is on the higher side or is excessive. The petitioner is a teacher and his income was assessed at Rs. 4,700/- per month as on 27.9.1993. Thus the present revision is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.