Ramesh Chand alias Subhash vs Ved Kumari

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The marriage between Mst. Ved Kumari and Ramesh Chander alias Subhash took place on 10th December, 1981 at Hissar. Thereafter, they started residing together at the house of Ramesh Chander located in village Bawani Khera. The husband being not satisfied with the dowry given on the occasion of the marriage started maltreating his wife by insulting her. On her failure to fulfil the unreasonable demands of the husband he started giving her beatings. The husband had also put up a demand of refrigerator and scooter in April, 1982 but the wife refused to ask her parents to give these articles keeping in view their poor financial condition, which resulted in her turning out of the matrimonial house after giving beatings. The husband further directed her not to enter his house unless she fetches these articles from her parents. She then went to the house of her brother who in turn took her to village Nagthla where her parents resided. Her parents approached her husband on a number of occasions to rehabilitate her but he refused to do so. According to Mst Ved Kumari, her husband is a doctor and his monthly income is not less than Rs. 3000/. The husband also owns agricultural land whereas she has no source of livelihood. Under these circumstances, she filed an application under section 125 Cr. P.C on 24th March, 1986 claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/ per month from her husband. This application was resisted by the husband by refuting the above referred allegations of demand of dowry or maltreatment. On the other hand, he maintained that she had left his home of her own accord on the pretext of attending the marriage of his cousin, but without his permission. The husband also averred that the behaviour of his wife toward his parents is not good. The husband further offered to rehabilitate his wife. It was also averred that the husband is a poor man and earns only Rs. 300/ per month and has no other source of income.

The trial Court appraising the evidence led by both the parties awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/ per month from the date of filing the application. The trial Court ignored the decree dated 31.8.1986 of restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband under the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that it has not since attained finality because the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani is still pending before the High Court. It also weighed with the Trial Court that the proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were instituted after the institution of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Feeling aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, both the parties went in revisions which were disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Sudge, Hisar vide order under assail before this Court. Both the revision petitions filed by the husband as well as by the wife for enhancement of maintenance allowance were dismissed upholding the order of the Trial Court.

Feeling aggrieved against that order, the husband has come up under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order of both the lower courts.

I have heard the learned counsel of the parties besides perusing the record.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the appeal preferred by Mst. Ved Kumari against the judgement and decree of learned Additional District in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is still pending before the High Court. Thus it cannot be said that the aforesaid judgment and decree had obtained finality. Moreover, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband after institution of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife. Thus it can be well said that the husband had instituted these proceedings as a counterblast to the proceedings instituted by the wife for maintenance allowance. Keeping in view the social set up of our society, it is not acceptable that the wifewould leave the shelter of her matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. The husband has failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why the wife had left his house without any cause. It is not even his case that the wife was forcing him to reside separately from his parents but on his refusal she had deserted him. On the other hand there is specific evidence of Mst. Ved Kumari and her brother Kashmiri Lal PW 2 in order to show that she was maltreated and turned out by her husband from his house as she failed to fetch refrigerator and scooter from her parents. In view of the above circumstances, the evidence of Ramaesh Chander husband or Som Nath and Lal Chand to the effect that the husband demanded no dowry from his wife or that she left the matrimonial house of her own accord is of no consequence.

The amount of Rs. 300/ per month as maintenance allowance cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the income of the husband or status of the parties as in these days of soaring prices of the essential goods, the husband happens to be a doctor and it is not acceptable that he is earning hardly Rs. 300/ per month. Moreover, the husband being an ablebodied man is bound to support his wife. It was not even suggested to Mst. Ved Kumari that she was earning her living independently from other source.

Consequently, under these circumstances, there appears to be no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed.