Tulsi Ram vs Smt. Paro Bai

B.R. Arora, J.—This petition u/s 482, Cr. PC is directed against the order dated January 10,1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, in criminal revision No. 14 of 1989 (Paro Bai v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and Criminal Revision petition No. 18 of 1989 (Tulsi Ram v. Paro Bai).

Smt. Paro Bai filed an application u/s 125, Cr. PC for grant of maintenance against the petitioner Tulsi Ram in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh. The notice of his petition was given to the petitioner. The applicant-non-petitioner Smt. Paro Bai, in support of her case, produced hereself as AW 1, Fakir Chand AW 2, Prem Das AW 3 and Wazir Chand AW 4. The petitioner-non-applicant Tulsi Ram produced himself as NAW 1 Gurbachansing NAW 2 and Mahendrasingh NAW 3. The learned trial Court, after consider the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that as the petitioner and his other relatives treating her with cruelty and tried to burn her with electric wire, therefore she is entitled not to live with her in-laws and has righly been living with her parents. The learned trial Court, therefore, awarded a maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from the date of order, i.e., with effect from April 21, 1989. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, Smt. Paro Bai filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar.

It has been contended on behalf of Smt. Paro Bai (wife) that the amount of the maintenance, awarded by the trial Court, is on a lower side and it should be enhanced. It was, also, contended that the learned lower Court should have awarded the maintenance with effect from the date of application and not from the date of the order. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the husband Tulsi Ram that Smt. Paro Bai is living separately without any just cause and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The learned Aditional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 10,1990, dismissed the revision petition filed by Tulsi Ram, but, however, allowed the revision petition filed by Paro Bai and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 200/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month and made it payable from the date of application, i.e., with effect from October 6, 1986. It is against this judgment that the present petition u/s 482, Cr. PC has been filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the applicant-non-petitioner Smt. Paro Bai is living separately from the petitioned husband) without any just cause and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance and the learned lower Court committed an error in granting the maintenance. It is, also, submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned lower Court is very excessive and the petitioner is a casual labour and he is earning about Rs. 500/- to 600/- per month, only. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner on the other hand, has contended that the in-laws of the applicant/non- petitioner Smt. Paro Bai tried to burn her by throwing her on the electric wires but it is only due to the grace of God that she was saved otherwise she would have been killed by these persons. It is, also, contended that the petitioner is earning more than Rs. 1000/- per month and the amount of maintenance, awarded by the learned lower Court, cannot be said to be excessive in any mannaer.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. So far as the finding arrived at by the learned lower Court, after considering the evidence on record that the applicant/non-petitioner Smt. Paro Bai has sufficient reason for living separatey, does not require any interference. The applicant Smt. Paro Bai was treated cruely by her in-laws and she was tried to be burnt by throwing her on the electric wires. The conclusion arrived at by the learned lower Court is has on proper appreciation of evidence.

Now, conies to the question the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned lower Court is excessive or not? In the instant case, looking to the income of the petitioner, therefore, I think it proper to grant Rs. 350/- (Rupees three hundred fifty only) per month as the maintenance allowance to the applicant-non- petitioner Smt. Paro Bai from the petitioner Tulsi Ram.

In this view of the matter, the miscellaneous petition is partly allowed. The maintenance awarded by the learned lower Court is reduced from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month. The amount of maintenance will be payable from the date of the application, i.e. with effect from October 6, 1986. The petitioner should pay the amount of the maintenance allowance month by month by the 15th of each month but so fair as the amount of arrears is concerned, the petitioner is allowed three month''s time to pay the amount to the non-petitioner Smt. Paro Bai.