Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1554 (MP)

Lesar Bai v. Nandlal

2013-12-13

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT N. K. Gupta, J. The applicant has preferred the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 14.6.2013 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.170/2012 whereby the revision filed by the respondent was accepted against the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the JMFC, Balaghat in Misc. Criminal Case No.119/2010 and the maintenance granted by the Lower Court was set aside. 2. Facts of the case in short are that the applicant had moved an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent that her marriage took place with the respondent in the year 1985. Three children were born in result of that marriage. The respondent was working in Bharveli mines and he went in affair with one Koushalya Bai and therefore, he started ignoring the applicant. A Panchayat took place between the parties and a maintenance of Rs.7000/- was granted by the Panchayat which was being paid by the respondent but from June 2010 he did not pay the maintenance whereas he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from the mines and he was earning 20 quintals of paddy out of his half acre land and therefore, maintenance of Rs.4000/- was demanded. 3. In reply to the application the respondent denied all the allegations. It is specifically pleaded that the applicant was a quarrelsome woman who had suspicion upon the respondent and when he was visiting his house due to quarrel of the applicant he could not reside with peace. Also his sons were against him and therefore, he started living at village Bharveli, by taking a room. All the sons of the applicant are well to do persons. They had various lands in the village. The respondent gave three acres of land in name of the applicant and the applicant had possession on his half acre land. The applicant was earning more than her requirement. He denied his relations with Koushalya Bai and therefore, prayed that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C may be dismissed. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after considering the evidence adduced by the parties granted a maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the applicant whereas in Criminal Revision No.170 of 2012 the revisionary Court set aside the order of maintenance and dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 5. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after considering the evidence adduced by the parties granted a maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the applicant whereas in Criminal Revision No.170 of 2012 the revisionary Court set aside the order of maintenance and dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 5. After service of notice to the respondent, he did not appear before this Court therefore, I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant finally. 6. After considering the evidence given by the applicant Lesar Bai (PW1), Rooplal (PW2) and Nandlal (DW1), it is apparent that from the very beginning the applicant was residing in the village Bagholi and looking after the property of the respondent. The respondent was working in the mines and he was visiting his house at Bagholi from time to time. It would be apparent that the application was filed by the applicant and her three sons but thereafter, the names of her sons were deleted because they were major and married. If the sons of the applicants were unemployed then their marriage was not possible. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the sons of the applicant were having the landed property of the respondent along with the applicant and they are earning an appropriate amount. Rooplal (PW2) has accepted that the applicant was residing with her sons in the common house. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that she was living all alone. 7. It was pleaded by the applicant that from half acre of the land the respondent was getting an earning of 20 quintals of paddy and therefore, it cannot be said that the three acres of land which was purchased by the respondent in the name of the applicant was not giving any yield. It appears that the applicant handed over the lands to her sons and thereafter, she had claimed the maintenance from the salary of the respondent. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the respondent has arranged for income of the applicant and she is capable to maintain herself. Hence she is not entitled to get any more maintenance from the side of the respondent. 8. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the respondent has arranged for income of the applicant and she is capable to maintain herself. Hence she is not entitled to get any more maintenance from the side of the respondent. 8. It would be apparent that the marriage of the applicant took place with the respondent 25 years back, before filing of the application because she had shown the age of her eldest son to be 24 years in the application. She did not mention that from which day the respondent had relation with Koushalyabai. She had pleaded the fact that she was given a maintenance of Rs.7000/- by the respondent due to compromise which took place before the Panchayat but no witness was examined to show that such Panchayat took place between the parties. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that to get the maintenance within a reasonable time the applicant has pleaded about that Panchayat and maintenance granted by the respondent. If the entire landed property was with the applicant then the respondent who was not getting the salary of Rs.10,000/- in those days and he could not give a maintenance of Rs.7000/- to the applicant. Hence, it would be apparent that the applicant was residing with her sons peacefully and just to get the salary of the respondent a maintenance application was filed after delay of atleast 10 years. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said the respondent did not arrange for maintenance of the applicant or the applicant was unable to maintain herself. 9. It is a general rule that the wife (applicant) cannot get the maintenance without residing with the husband (respondent). It would be apparent that the applicant was kept in the house of the respondent at Village Bagholi and she was not ousted from that house. On the contrary the respondent was ousted by his children. It could not be proved by the applicant and her witnesses that alleged Sumitra Bai was residing in the house of the respondent at his working place. The evidence given by the respondent should be accepted that due to quarrels done by the applicant he was liable to reside at his working place and not to visit his house at Bagholi. Under such circumstances, the respondent did not oust the applicant but the applicant and her sons ousted the respondent from his house. The evidence given by the respondent should be accepted that due to quarrels done by the applicant he was liable to reside at his working place and not to visit his house at Bagholi. Under such circumstances, the respondent did not oust the applicant but the applicant and her sons ousted the respondent from his house. Under such circumstances, the applicant was not entitled to get the maintenance from her husband because she could not prove that the respondent refused to maintain her. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion it would be apparent that the applicant was not entitled for the maintenance because arrangement of her maintenance was done by the respondent and she was not unable to maintain herself. No where she was ousted by her husband. On the contrary, she ousted her husband from his house. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion no illegality or perversity is visible in the order dated 14.6.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.170/2012 and the Srefore, no interference is required from the side of this Court in the present revision. 12. Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Smt. Lesar Bai is hereby dismissed with costs. 13. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information.