Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1026 (MP)

RAMDAYAL VAISHYA v. ANITA KUMARI

2003-08-28

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
SHANTANU KEMKAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri M. M. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission. Perused record. ( 2 ) THIS revision Is at the instance of the applicant-husband against the order dated 2-12-2002 passed by the First Additional district Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Revision no. 122/02 whereby the revision filed by the non-applicant has been allowed and the order passed on 8-8-2002 by the Judicial magistrate First Class, Vaidhan District sidhi in Misc. Criminal Case No. 38/2000 has been set aside. ( 3 ) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision-petition may be mentioned as under : the non-applicant-Anita Kumari filed an application under S. 125 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, claiming maintenance from the applicant-husband-Ramdayal amounting to Rs. 2500/- per month. As per the averments made by her in the application, after her marriage her husband Ramdayal, his mother and father used to ill-treat her for their demand for dowry. About two years prior to the filing of the application they ousted her from her matrimonial house. She was compelled to live with her disabled father. Ramdayal had married to other woman who is daughter of lalji Vaishya. Anita Kumari also stated that she is unable to maintain herself. Ramdayal has got enough resources and is earning sufficient amount, still he has neglected and refused to maintain her. In reply Ramdayal denied the allegations about cruelty, illtreatment and demand of dowry and has alleged that Anita Kumar has left his house at her own. Ramdayal admitted that he kept a mistress, he explained that this was done because he was facing difficulties in living and supervising his agricultural land. ( 4 ) THE trial Court after recording of the evidence led by the parties though held that the Ramdayal is earning Rs. 2000/- to rs. 3000/- per month. But held that as Anita kumari left her matrimonial house at her own and is residing with her father who is having sufficient agricultural lands and is a moneyed man there is no difficulty for her father to maintain Anita Kumari. The application submitted by the wife was accordingly rejected by the trial Court. ( 5 ) ANITA Kumari challenged the order of trial Court in revision before the First Additional sessions Judge, Sidhi who allowed the revision and Ramdayal was ordered to pay rs. The application submitted by the wife was accordingly rejected by the trial Court. ( 5 ) ANITA Kumari challenged the order of trial Court in revision before the First Additional sessions Judge, Sidhi who allowed the revision and Ramdayal was ordered to pay rs. 400/- per month to his wife Anita kumari towards her maintenance. ( 6 ) FROM the perusal of the record of the trial Court it is clear that the said order is based on misreading of evidence and also is based on misconception of law. By the evidence adduced on behalf of Anita Kumari it has been amply proved that the Ramdayal used to ill-treat Anita Kumari and used to demand dowry from her father. In spite of sufficient means Ramdayal neglected and refused to maintain Anita Kumari. Applicant-Ramdayal did not dispute the fact that he has kept a mistress. In such circumstances the finding of the trial Court that anita Kumari was residing at her fathers house at her own is not sustainable. ( 7 ) THE Sessions Court has rightly set aside it and held that for the purposes of order for maintenance to the wife the income of her father cannot be taken into consideration, the individual income of the wife has to be seen. The Sessions Court has also correctly held that since Ramdayal has kept a mistress, it was, sufficient ground for Anita kumari not to live with Ramdayal. The revisional Court on overall consideration held that Anita is entitled for the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from Ramdayal. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Ramdayal could not point out any illegality or Infirmity in the aforesaid order passed by the Sessions Court by which the sum of Rs. 400/- per month has been ordered in favour of the Anita Kumari to be paid by Ramdayal towards maintenance. Thus, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Sessions Court. In the result, this revision fails and is dismissed summarily. .