^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 95 of ^ Single Bench ApRJicant Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J. Shivdayal Versus Non-applicant Thawahin Bai Order be posted for pronouncement on (o April, 2008 :r-l:SdA.:;;; TP-Sitaraia Judge ; 1.J'-*;U"»'*TA—: -< . (^TT^f aA Applicant HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 95 of \, Shivdayal s/o Baliram Suryawanshi, aged 60 years, R/o Pamgarh, Police Station Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Non-applicant Versus Thawahin Bai w/o Shivdaysl Suryawanshi, aged 55 years, R/o Pamgarh, Police Station pagarh, Distt. ,t Jangir-Champa (C.G.) REVISION PETITION U/S 397 & 4Q1 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma, J) Present: Shri J.K. Shashtri, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate forthe non-applicant. ORDER (Passed on 10th April, 2008) 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24.12.2002 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir in Criminal Revision No. 457/2001 reversing the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the Judteial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 53/2001. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that the non-applicant is having no suificient cause for living separately from her husband i.e. applicant. She is able to maintain herself and without any material availabie on record, the revisional court has awarded maintenance and thereby committed illegatity. The revisional court has also not considered that the application was belated. 3. Counselforthe DartiesheaKi. 4, Order impugned and records of the court below perused. 5. Learned counsei for the applteant submits that according to ttie application of the non-appiicant, she had filed the application for \ .^'r:3"%> /^^ "\ i^'^^^ g "'•sss li8i!!l 8. maintenance after lapse of 15 years. She is having sufficient means to maintain herself and the applicant is maintaining the non-appiicant. She is having no cause for iiving separately. When she was able to maintain herself for last 15 years before filing of the application, then it was required to the. non-appiicant to establish that after 15 years she become unable to maintain herself. The non-applicant has not adduced any evidence to this effect to show that on the date offiling of the application she become unable to maintain herself. Leamed counsel further submits that the non-applicant has fited maintenance application after lapse of 15 years and inordinate delay has not been explained, therefore, she is not entitted for maintenance. Learned counsel lastly submits that the non-applicant is required to prove that she has been neglected by the applicant, otherwise she is not entitled for maintenance. Reliance has placed on behalf of the applicant on the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh inthe case of Kuntibai (Smt.) v. Alakhram reported in 1999 (1) JU 89 in which it has held that inordinate delay is required to be explained, otherwise wife is not entitted for maintenance. Reliance has also placed on behaif of the applicant on the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of MANUBAI w/o SUKHDEO PATIDAR vs. SHUKHDEO s/o KISHRAM PATIDAR reported in 1989 M.P.L.J. 433 in which it has held thatwife is required to prove that she was neglected or refused to maintain by the husband. On the other hand, order impugned is supported on behalf of ttie non-applieant. In order to apprecfate the contention and argument of the parGes 1 have perused the evidence adduced by the parties. It is not disputed ;'^^R^® •j-aa p ^- .f£'-::^ '•-:W";7-;::s*.:;^s. ;'^^S^^i •".^i^^ '•tss: 10. @ that the aopiicant has remamed with Sheeta Bai in the year1976. The applicant has aileged in reply of the application for maintenance that the non-applicant is residing with her and he is maintaining the non-appiicant. Witness of the applicant namely Baratu has atso stated that the non-applipant is residing with the applicant and the applicant is maintaining to her, but in his cross-examination he has admitted that the non-applicant is residing with his son Ramesh in separate house and the applicant is residing with his second wife and children in another house. Same thjng has been stated by the non-applicant's son Rame'sh and even by the non-applicant. The non-applicant has specifically stated that the applicant is not maintaining to her and she is suffering from paralysis. She is residing separateiy in one room in the same premises where the appiicant resides, but she has denied thatthe appticant is maintaining her. It appears that the non-appticant is iiving with her son Ramesh in the same premises, but in separate part of Uie house. The applicant has tried to show that the non-applicant is residing with her and he is maintaining his wife, but same was falsified by his witness Baratu. According to the application for maintenance filed by the non-applicant and her statement, it is ctear that after second mamage of the app!icant, she is residing separately in the same premises and presentiy she is suffering from paralysis. She is having no means for her maintenance. Her son Ramesh has stated that the non-applicant is residing with her. It shows that presently she is living on the mercy of her son. The applicant is having sufficient means, but he is not maintaining his wife. The^applicant is under an obligation to maintain his wife and on the ground of second mamage the non-applicant is entitled to live separately from her husband. ^ ^SSft 1 ^ .s -'"' .^ t'^ .^-K^' 4 B/- 11. Admittedly. application for maintenance was filed after lapse of 15 years, but cause ^has atso been shown by the non-applicant that at present she is aged and on the ground of health she is not able to maintain herself. SheF has stated in her statement that her right hand is paralyzed and presently she is not able to worR as a labour. These facts are SufRcient to explain inordinate deiay in fiting the application. 12. The learned trial court |ias not considered that who is under an <1. obiigation to maintain the n^n-appiicant and also not considered the factum of inability to maintain herself and arrived at the wrong conclusion, but the revisionai court after taking into consideration the legal obligation and material available on record awarded the maintenance. The revisional eourt has rightly awarded the maintenance and has not committed any illegality or irregularity in awarding the maintenance. 13. Consequently, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ..'SdA !:,: ;. ^., TK;Shaii!ia-. f -i ;::Judge^' : ' ,'!| s.SE^iSS^S'^SS^SSSS.