Rama Devi vs Anand Parkash

A.S. Nehra, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.5.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by which the revision petition of Anand Parkash was allowed and the order dated 5.4.1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurgaon, allowing the petition filed by the wife u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directing the husband to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of 25/- per month, was set aside.

The facts of the case, in brief, as mentioned in the petition, are that the parties were duly married according to Hindu rites on 16.7.1975 at village Bhora Kalan. It is alleged that the husband and the members of this family were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of the wife and they had been making demands off and on. It is alleged that parents of the wife had been meeting some demands of the husband and his parents, but the demands of the husband became so alarming that they could not be satisfied. It is also alleged that the wife was not treated properly, and the husband, on failure of the parents of the wife to fulfill his demands, also threatened to enter into another marriage. It is further pleaded that the husband had remarried with a lady resident village Badele, district Bhiwani, and a criminal complaint had been filed accordingly by the wife regarding contracting of second marriage by the husband. It is alleged that the husband finally turned out the wife from the matrimonial house about a year prior to the filing of this petition and that the husband had no legal justification to ignore her. As regards the salary of the husband, it was stated that he was getting Rs. 800/-per month. The wife, therefore, claimed Rs. 400/- per month, as maintenance allowance as it was alleged that the husband was deliberately neglecting to maintain her.

In his reply, the husband, while admitting marital relations between the parties, denied that he or his parents made any demand from the wife or her parents. It was pleaded that the wife had left the matrimonial house without any rhyme or reason without the knowledge of the husband or his parents on 24.4.1981 and at that time she is alleged to have carried jewellery weighing 20 tolas of the value of Rs. 40,000/-. It was stated that in the year 1979, the wife had earlier left the matrimonial house and she returned to the company of the husband only after the father of the husband paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the brother of the wife. It is further alleged that now they have demanded more money from the husband who has refused to oblige them and has insisted for the refund of Rs. 5000/- already paid. The allegation of contracting second marriage was denied. It was pleaded that as the wife had herself left the matrimonial house on her own accord, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance.

It is clear from the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a wife claiming maintenance under this section must prove that her husband has neglected or refused to maintain her and that she has not refused to live with him without any sufficient reason. In other words, if a wife refuses to live with her husband, without any sufficient reason, she cannot claim maintenance from him u/s 125 of the Code.

A perusal of the petition filed by the wife would show that the main ground on which this petition was filed was that the husband has contracted second marriage in village Badela and that a criminal complaint was also pending against him and others on that account. It was further pleaded that the husband was making demands and that it was not possible to meet his demands. It was further pleaded that the wife was not treated in a proper manner and she was usually given a very cold treatment. Smt. Rama Devi, who appeared as AW1 has deposed that during 8/9 years of her marriage with her husband she remained in the company of her husband for a total period of 15/16 months. She has further deposed that she was left by her husband at her parents house, without making any arrangement for her maintenance. She further stated on oath that her husband demanded a motor cycle and that he has contracted second marriage. It is to be noted that in her statement she did not utter even a single word about any cold treatment allegedly meted out to by her husband or about any quarrelsome attitude of her husband. Kailash Chand, who is brother of the wife has also admitted that during 8 years his sister lived with her husband for a total period 15/16 months at Bhiwani and that she often used to come with him. He, however, admitted that she had accompanied her husband several times to Bhiwani meaning thereby that her husband had been coming to bring her back. Kailash Chand, AW2, has also admitted that the husband came to village Bhora Kalan, about two months back. He has also given the name of the second wife of the husband as Kaushalya Devi daughter of Man Singh son of Bhaktwar Lal.

Tej Ram, AW 4, and Lachhman Dass, AW 5, have stated that they had approached the husband at Bhiwani about 1-1/2 years back to persuade him to bring her back. The petitioner has also examined Sita Ran resident of Badela to depose that the husband has married a daughter of Man Singh resident of Badela about a year back. Lachhman Dass, AW 5, in his cross-examination has admitted that the wife had frequently been coming to her parents house and has been staying there for considerable time and he has also admitted that lastly it was the husband who left her at her parents hose.

Anand Parkash, the husband, who appeared as RW 1, has also stated that his wife stayed with him for about 1-1/2 years since the time of marriage and he stated that she had left the matrimonial house earlier also but she returned back after they paid Rs. 5000/- to her brother. He also denied having contracted second marriage with the daughter bf Man Singh. On the other hand, he deposed that the daughter of Man Singh was married to his younger brother. The husband has produced Man Singh as RW2 and he has deposed that her daughter Kaushalya was married to Bharat Bhushan son of Krishan Dutt and that Bharat Bhushan is younger brother of Anand Parkash. Both the parties also adduced in evidence extracts from birth register showing different dates of entries of birth of son of Kaushalya. These are Ex.PW 6/A produced by the wife-and Ex Rl produced by the husband and in both these documents, the date of birth of a child is also different and the father''s name of the child is also different though mother''s name of the child is the same being Kaushalya Devi.

The evidence led by the wife to prove the alleged second marriage by her husband is not reliable. Man Singh, RW 2, has stated on oath that her daughter Kaushalya Devi was married to Bharat Bhushan son of Krishan Dutt who is younger brother of Anand Parkash. The second marriage alleged to have been performed by Anand Parkash is not proved.

It has been established on the record that the wife has lived with her husband for a total period of 14/15 months since the marriage which took place in the year 1975. The case of the husband that she had earlier once withdrawn from the matrimonial house is substantiated from the admission made by Rama Devi, AW 1, in her cross-examination, wherein she stated that she had earlier resided separately from her husband for a period of one year. , As already stated above, there is no plea of any cruel treatment given to the wife by the husband and it is to be noted that Rama Devi while appearing as AW 1 has not uttered even a single word about any alleged maltreatment given to her by her husband.

Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner drew my pointed attention to the letters Exs PA, PB and PC placed on the file and it was contended that Anand Parkash has not specifically denied that these letters were written by him. A perusal of these letters would show that they were written by Anand Parkash as far back as in 1976, 1979 and 1980 and although these letters contained intemperate language but they also contained allegations against his in-laws. It is, however, to be noted that as per the own case of the wife, she was turned out from the matrimonial house about a year prior to the filing of this petition which was filed on 3.7.1982 and, in this way, according to the allegations made in the petition, she Was turned out from the matrimonial house in the middle of 1981. These letters Exs. PA, PB and PC having been written long before thereto, any misconduct exhibited through these letters shall be deemed to have been condoned by the wife particularly when the allegations made in these letters can be said to amount to the general wear and tear of marriage life.

From the above discussion, it is manifest that the wife has not come out with an explanation as to why she was not willing to cohabit with her husband and, as such, she has failed to prove that she has sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband and, therefore, she cannot claimjnaintenance from her husband.

As a sequel of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.