Bathulu Bhagirathi vs Bathulu Lakshmi Devi

Harries, C.J.—This is a petition for revision of an order passed by the learned Joint Magistrate of Berhampore granting the opposite party a monthly maintenance of Rs. 8. The petitioner and the opposite party are husband and wife. According to the opposite party, the petitioner has for a long period of time ill-treated her: consequently, she has been forced to leave her husband''s house and leave apart from him. She alleges that her husband has refused to maintain her and accordingly she made an application to the learned Magistrate for her maintenance. The defence was that the husband had not ill-treated his wife and that he had always been and was ready and willing to take his wife back to his house.

That there had been friction between husband and wife is clear, because on a previous occasion proceedings for maintenance had been brought. Those proceedings were not pressed, because the husband took his wife back. However, five or six days after that the wife alleges that she was compelled to leave the house by reason of ill-treatment.

The only evidence of ill-treatment was the evidence of the wife herself. The learned Magistrate has accepted this evidence and in my view rightly. The learned Magistrate has considered the surrounding circumstances and has come to the conclusion that the probabilities are all in favour of the version given by the wife. The wife unfortunately suffers from fits and it is clear that the husband wishes to marry a second wife. This, however, he will not do without the consent of the opposite party, and it is clear that she will not give her consent.

In such circumstances, it is clear that considerable ill-feeling must have existed between the petitioner and his wife. The wife also stated that after the previous proceedings had been amicably settled and she had returned home with her husband, the latter demanded his wife''s gold ornaments. This he had no right to do, and the wife says that she refused to give them. There appears to be no doubt that such a demand was made, and I can well believe that upon the wife''s refusal the relations between the parties became more strained. In those circumstances the wife''s evidence is far more likely to be true than the evidence of the husband.

In any event the trial Court was entitled to act if it thought fit upon the evidence of the wife. The law does not require corroboration in cases of this kind, though, of course, such corroboration is always desirable. In the present case the circumstances strongly support the wife''s: testimony and in my view the learned Magistrate was right in accepting it.

In a claim for maintenance it is no defence for a husband to say that he is prepared to take his wife back if the facts show that the wife has reasonable cause for fearing to return to the husband''s home. If a wife has been ill-treated and there is ground for believing that if she returns the ill-treatment will continue, then the wife is entitled to live apart from her husband.

In such a case the husband, who is the guilty party, must maintain his wife. Causing a wife to leave the protection of the husband by ill-treatment is tantamount to driving the wife deliberately from the home. In the present case the wife was, in my opinion, justified in refusing to return to her husband It has been further argued that the amount of maintenance is excessive. The wife stated that her husband''s income was Rs. 20 or more, whereas the husband stated that it was Rs. 10. The learned Magistrate was entitled to Act upon the wife''s evidence and to assess the maintenance of herself and that of her child at Rs. 8.

If the financial circumstances of the husband alter for better or for worse, the amount of maintenance can be increased or decreased by application to the Court. For these reasons I see no ground for interfering with the order passed and consequently this petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner must pay the costs of the opposite party, which I assess at one gold mohur.