Nirmal Dass vs Usha Devi

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—Nirmal Dass has filed the present revision petition assailing the order dated 5.7.1991 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, whereby interim maintenance of Rs 400/- per month was allowed to Usha Devi wife of the petitioner.

Usha Devi filed an application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance on the allegations that she was married to the petitioner on 1.2.1990. The relations between the parties remained cordial for about three months but thereafter the petitioner started maltreating her and putting forward demand for more dowry articles such as television, scooter, cooler etc. On 14.9.1990 she was again merciless beating and was turned out of the house. Her father visited the village of the petitioner along with Bachna Ram, Bakhtawar Ram and Sarwan but the petitioner did not listen to them. She had been deliberately deserted by the petitioner. The petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 3000/- per month while she had no source of income. Hence the petition. She also prayed for interim maintenance. After hearing the Counsel for the parties interim maintenance was allowed to her from the date of the application i.e. 17.1.1991.

The petitioner contended that there were no specific allegations in the application for grant of maintenance that the petitioner had refused or neglected to maintain her. Rather there was absolutely no justification for the wife to live separately from the petitioner. She had deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was not entitled to interim maintenance.

I have heard Shri A.S. Kalra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri I.K. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that there was no specific allegations in the application filed by the wife for grant of maintenance that the petitioner had neglected or refused to maintain Usha Devi and she was unable to maintain herself. It was also contended that interim maintenance could not be allowed from the date of the application without recording reasons for the same.

The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the allegations made in the application prima facie made out that the petitioner maltreated his wife and turned her out of the house after subjecting her to beating and he did not listen to the father of the respondent when he approached him along with some respectables. The respondent has also mentioned in the application that she had no source of income and her parents were unable to maintain her. The very allegations that the petitioner had deserted his wife, will show that there was wilful neglect on the part of the petitioner to maintain her which amounted to refusal.

The allegations made in the application for grant of maintenance which can be ascertained from the impugned order sufficiently reveal prima-facie refusal and neglect on the part of the petitioner to maintain his wife who has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. The learned trial Court rightly considered the respective contentions of the parties and then passed the impugned order. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 125 Cr. P.C. the maintenance allowance is payable from the date of the order or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance and the Court is not bound to record reasons for allowing maintenance from the date of application. Both the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are without merit and the learned Counsel failed to show any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The petition is, thus, devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed.