Home > Judgement > No maintenance if wife fails to prove neglect and stays apart from husband on her own

No maintenance if wife fails to prove neglect and stays apart from husband on her own

Equivalent citations: 1999 CriLJ 1789

Bench: G Gupta

Bheekha Ram vs Goma Devi And Ors. on 22/1/1999

ORDER

G.L. Gupta, J.

1. This revision by the husband has been preferred against the revisional order D/-17-3-97 passed by the

learned Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner whereby he set aside the order DA 22-4-95 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner refusing maintenance to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

2. The short facts of the case are that Goma Devi for her and on behalf of her two minor sons filed an

application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband-Bheeka Ram (petitioner in this revision) for

maintenance. It was alleged that Goma Devi was married to Bheeka Ram 12-13 years ago but for some time

her husband and his parents were torturing her for dowry and that she was beaten and turned out of the house

and with great difficulty she was again kept by them. It was further alleged that she purchased a piece of land

by selling her ornaments and with the help of her parents she constructed a house and started living there but

three months before filing the application Bheekha Ram tried to kill her by burning and thereafter he is

neglecting her. It was stated that Bheekha Ram earned Rs. 60/- per day by doing Mason work. It was prayed

that she be allowed maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month for herself and Rs. 250/- each for her children. In the

reply, the husband denied the charge of cruelty for dowry. He also denied that he ever gave beating to Goma

Devi or that he tried to kill her. He came out with the case that Goma Devi used to misbehave with his parents

and, therefore, he purchased a. piece of land and constructed a house for living separately but his wife

continued to cause mental torture to him by abusing his parents and ignoring him. It was stated that the

petitioner left his house without just cause and was not discharging her marital obligations.

3. Goma Devi entered into the witness box and examined A. W. 1 Tulchiram. In rebuttal, Bheekha Ram

entered into the witness box and examined N. A. W. 2 Kaluram, N. A. W. 3 Modaram and N. A. W. 4

Sampatram. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate held that the allegations of

neglect by the husband were not proved. He further held that the allegations of cruelty for the dowry were also

not proved. Holding that the wife left the matrimonial home without just cause, and she was not entitled to

maintenance, the learned Magistrate rejected the application of Goma Devi. Goma Devi filed a revision

against that order. By the impugned order the learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed her revision and held that

Goma Devi was entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 250/- per month for herself and Rs. 125/- each for her two

children.

4. Mr. S. D. Vyas vehemently contended that the Addl. Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the

evidence and has committed grave error in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate. He cited

the cases of Shahzad Bano v. Sher Mohammad 1990 RCC 57, Bhanwari Bai v. Mohd. Ishaq 1984 MLR 234,

Budharam Kosta v. Pitarbai 1984 MLR 62 and Raghbir Singh v. Krishna 1982 MLR 307.

5. On the other hand, Mr. G. K. Vyas urged that this Court should not interfere in there visional order as the

Magistrate had not properly considered the evidence and had come to erroneous conclusion.

6. I have considered the above arguments. A reading of the order of the Magistrate shows that he had dealt

with the evidence of each and every witness. It could not be pointed out by learned counsel for Smt. Goma

Devi that the Magistrate had ignored some important piece of evidence appearing in favour of the wife or that

there was misreading of the evidence in favour of the husband. It has to be accepted that the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge has overstepped when he on reappreciation of evidence has come to a different conclusion. It

Bheekha Ram vs Goma Devi And Ors. on 22 January, 1999

Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1447626/ 1

Advertisements
Categories: Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: