Pritam Singh vs Raj Saini

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.—This revision petition has been preferred by Pritam Singh, a school teacher, against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dated 7th August, 1984, whereby he enhanced the maintenance allowance granted to respondent No. 2 Narinder Singh, the minor son of respondent No. 1, from Rs. 70 to Rs. 100 and allowed maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 150 per month to respondent No. 1.

The facts which gave rise to this petition are as follows. Respondent No. 1 who is admittedly the wife of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance to her and her minor son Narinder Singh respondent No. 2 born out of the loins of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had been maltreating her and had neglected and refused to maintain her. The learned trial Magistrate granted Rs. 70 per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 2 but turned down the prayer of Respondent No. 1 for the grant of maintenance allowance to her on the ground that she had of her own refused to live with the petitioner in spite of the bona fide offer made by the petitioner to her. The petitioner went in revision before the Court of Session against the grant of maintenance to Respondent No. 2 while two separate revision petitions were filedone by Respondent No. 1 herself against the order of the learned trial Magistrate refusing maintenance to her and the other by Respondent No. 2 through Respondent No. 1 for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance granted to him. All the three revision petitions came up for final hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner against the grant of maintenance to Respondent No. 2 but allowed the other two revision petitions, i.e., the one filed by Respondent No. 1 and granted her maintenance allowance of Rs. 150 per month and in the second revision on behalf of Respondent No. 2 he enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 70 to Rs. 100. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has now come up in revision in this Court.

As far as the enhancement part of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is concerned. Mrs. Yash Pal Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not say much against that part. I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly came to a finding that Rs. 70 per month was a very meager sum keeping in view the cost of living these days. As far as the grant of maintenance allowanae to Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disagreed with the learned trial Magistrate that the petitioner made a bona fide offer to keep Respondent No. 1 with him and that Respondent No. 1 had no good reason to refuse the offer made by the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the offer of the petitioner to maintain Respondent No. 1 could not be termed as bona fide inasmuch as nobody knew that he would reconcile himself to the feeling that the wife was not chaste and that ever since 28th March, 1981, she had been living with her parents and that if the petitioner felt any concern for the respondents he would have sent some money for their maintenance during this period. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further came to a finding that the allegation of Respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was imputing unchastity and immorality to her was correct for the reason that no woman would readily come forward to make such accusation without any basis. I think that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is quite reasonable and that the reasons given by him are quite sound and do not call for any interference in revision. Apart from this the petitioner has failed to bring any material on the record to show as to why Respondent No. 1 who was even blessed with a male child was not willing to live with the petitioner although the petitioner was quite a wellto do person as he was getting about Rs. 1500 per month. It is not imaginable that in such circumstances any Indian woman would refuse to live with her husband without any reasonable cause.

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any force in the revision which is hereby dismissed.