Jai Narain vs Chhanno

M. M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

Smt. Chhanno, the respondent herein, claimed maintenance from her husband Jai Narain, the present petitioner for herself as also for her three minor children. She alleged that the petitioner was treating her with cruelty and had given her beating while turning her out of his house. The husband was then at Delhi being employed there, fetching a salary approximating Rs. 700/ per mensem. Thereafter, she started living in a village, called, Samargopalpur in District Rohtak. The husband contested the petition and offered to maintain the wife provided she lived with him. Despite that offer, the wife refused to live with the husband.

The trial Court, on consideration of the entire material, came to the conclusion that neglect and refusal on behalf of the husband was proved. On the inference that the wife was infact unable to maintain herself as also her minor children, the husband was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50/ each to all the four.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the wife filed a petition for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance. On the other hand, the husband filed revision petition for setting aside the maintenance order. Both these matters were dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who by a composite order, dismissed, the petition of the husband, while allowing the petition of the wife enhancing her maintenance, from Rs. 50/ per mensem to Rs. 200/ per mensem Aggrieved against the said order, the husband has now petitioned in this Court.

Mr. U. D. Gour, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, on merits, stressed that the husband had all along been willing to keep the wife with him, but for no rhyme or reason she was not willing to live in Delhi and the house in which she was living in village Samargopalpur was being simultaneously occupied by the husbands brotherinlaw (his sister''s husband) and his presence in the house was the sole cause of the problem between the parties. He further highlighted that as per statement of Ram Bhagat R.W. 3, the brotherinlaw named Chander Dhan was not even permitting the husband to enter that house enabling him to meet his wife. From this state of evidence, learned counsel wanted to urge in such a way so as to impure motive to the wife. On that strength, it was sought to be argued that it was not the husband who had refused or neglected to maintain the wife : rather she was, on her own, living separately from the husband for questionable reasons.

To my mind, the colour as given now, to the state of evidence, can lead us not towards any clearity. If the husband had choosen to keep his evidence vague and only feebly suggestive, then he alone is to be blamed for it. If his witnesses felt shy in attributing positive motives to the wife or Chander Bhan, this Court cannot on its own fill in blanks. Both the Courts below on the state of evidence, have come to the conclusion that there was refusal and neglect on behalf of the husband to maintain his wife and children and his offer in Court to maintain her was an impromptu device to forestall a situation I have no reason to take a different view from that which has been taken by the Courts below more so in second revision.

It was next contended that the wife was able to maintain herself, in as much as it, has come in evidence that she worked in the fields and even, otherwise, as a villager she would normally be having working hand. This aspect of the case, too, to my mind, does not advance the case of the husband. The wife cannot be put to disadvantage merely because she works. It cannot be made imperative on her to stop working and then seek maintenance from the husband. No evidence has been led as to what kind of work does the wife undertake and whether she fetches any wages for the same or not. This argument too does not cut any ice.

Lastly has been contended, that the quantum of maintenance was fairly high enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Now at It is noticeable that the husband admitted, that he was fetching over Rs. 700/ per mensem as salary from an Office at New Delhi. With that state of emoluments, I do not think that, if he was made to part with nearly half thereof towards four members of his family, was in any way excessive. The board conspectus of things have to be viewed and not necessarily the case of the wife in isolation. Even, otherwise, the error, if any, in that regard has automatically been wiped out by efflux of time in view of the high rate of inflation and rise of prices.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed.

Peition dismissed.