Manohar vs Smt. Kuwar Bai

N.K. Gupta, J.—Vide order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalay, Khandwa in Miscellaneous Case No. 46/2010 the respondent was granted a maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month. In Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2010 the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa vide the judgment dated 30.9.2010 dismissed the revision of the applicant but, the Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2010 filed by the respondent was accepted and maintenance was increased to a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred the present petition. The facts of the case in short are that, the respondent had moved an application u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C., that she was married with the applicant. Thereafter, without her consent the respondent brought a second wife and at present he has three daughters and one son from the second wife. One daughter was born to the respondent and the applicant kept a fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000/- for her in Maharashtra Bank but thereafter, he encashed that fixed deposit receipt without any permission of the respondent. The respondent was getting her livelihood by the job of labourer but, at present she was not competent to do anything and therefore, she prayed for maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month from the husband.

In reply to the application, the applicant denied all the allegations. He took a plea that he took a divorce according to the customs of his caste and she was living in an immoral life. She made some allegations about the respondent that she had relations with so many persons and therefore, she could not get any maintenance because she left the applicant 25 years back before filing the application u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalay, Khandwa after recording the evidence of the parties granted a maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the respondent whereas, the maintenance was enhanced by the reversionary Court from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2500/- per month.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission.

Both the Courts below have given so many grounds for grant of maintenance. At present, it is apparent that the applicant is working as a Cashier in the Bank and he has sufficient means to maintain his second wife and children along with the respondent and therefore, looking to his income etc. the revisionary Court has rightly decided that he was capable to give a maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month to the respondent.

The respondent has accepted in her statements that when she was young and competent to do the work of labourer, she did not demand any maintenance and now at this stage when she is not able to earn, she has no option except to seek the maintenance from her husband.

It is true that the respondent had lodged an application after 25 years after deserting her husband. If entire evidence given by the parties is considered simultaneously then it would be apparent, that the applicant kept his daughter born through the respondent with his mother and brother and also he was the person who, arranged the marriage of his daughter. In last 25 years neither the respondent resided for a single day with the applicant not made any complaint to anyone against the applicant about that second marriage and therefore, the claim of the applicant can be accepted that the respondent was divorced by the applicant by customary methods.

The applicant blamed the respondent for immoral life and so many things but, all such things are to be considered in case of a wife, who claims a maintenance without residing with the husband.

When it is accepted that a divorce took place between the parties, then divorcee wife can get a maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her husband unless she was married with some one. The applicant tried to prove that the respondent was residing with some Ramesh or some other person but, he could not prove that she was re-married and therefore, the liability of the applicant to pay the maintenance to his divorcee wife still continues. Under such circumstances, if the Courts below have given the maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month to the respondent though the reasons assigned were different but, being a divorcee wife the respondent was entitled to get that maintenance from the applicant.

Under such circumstances, the petition filed by the applicant cannot be accepted. Hence, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information.