Mohinder Kaur vs Dr. Bhola Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—Mohinder Kaur petitioner was married to Dr. Bhola Singh respondent in March, 1980. Hardeep Singh was born out of this wedlock and living with petitioner Mohinder Kaur.

She preferred an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) for the grant of maintenance allowance pleading, inter alia, that her parents had spent huge amount on her marriage with the respondent. After four years of the marriage, the younger sister of petitioner was married with the brother of the respondent. Once again sufficient dowry articles were given. However, respondent and his brother were not satisfied with the dowry and they started maltreating the petitioner for bringing insufficient dowry. In June 1985, the petitioner and her son were turned out of the house by the respondent and she was given severe beating. The father of the petitioner along with respectables of the village went to the respondent. Thereafter petitioner started living with the respondent. After one month she was again mal-treated and was beaten everyday. She has been living separately from respondent since January, 1986 and respondent makes persistent demand of rupees one lac to be paid. One these broad facts, petitioner u/s 125 of the Code seeking maintenance has been filed.

Respondent contests the petition alleging that the petitioner is a divorcee wife and the same is not maintainable. She had left the respondent on her own accord. It was denied that the petitioner was mal-treated or that there was any demand of dowry. On the contrary, it was alleged that petitioner is a short- tempered lady who used to compel the respondent to live separately from his parents.

The learned Judicial Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence, allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of rupees four hundred per month to petitioner and rupees two hundred per month to Hardeep Singh from the date of the order.

Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Bhola Singh preferred a Revision Petition in the Court of Session at Faridkot. The learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the learned Trial Court and awarded maintenance to the petitioner at rupees three hundred per month with effect from May 14, 1992, i.e., the date of the, order passed by the Trial Court.

By virtue of the present Revision Petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge claiming that maintenance should be enhanced as directed by the learned Trial Court.

While none appeared when the case was listed for arguments, it was deemed appropriate to decide the petition on appraisal of the material placed on the record. It is apparent from appraisal of the record that respondent had not maintained his wife and even filed a petition for divorce against her. There is no reason to disbelieve the finding that the petitioner was being mal-treated. The short question that could arise was if the learned Sessions Judge was justified in reducing her. maintenance to rupees three hundred per month. In the peculiar facts, one could not ignore the sum and substance of the evidence on the record. The respondent indeed is an able bodied person and it appears that there is some land in his name. Being an able bodied person, it was his legal obligation to maintain his wife and child and provide them with the minimum necessities of life. In this regard the income of the respondent cannot be ignored. Taking note of these facts, the learned Sessions Judge rightly reduced the maintenance of the respondent to rupees three hundred per month. It calls for no interference.

For the reasons aforesaid, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.