;' .t -"a&sa l.ttj !USI: Original noa-applicant HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARHATBILASPUR Crlminal Revisioa No. 11 of 2007 Rajeadra Kuinar Tiwari, Age 50 yr. S/o Kashi Prasad Tiwari, R.o. Geetaajali Nagar, Karbala Road, Behind BJP Offlce, Bilaspui- (C.G.j. Smt. "SauReeta Tiwan, Age 43 yrs. W/o Shri Rajendra Tiwari R/o C/o Sbri PrafuUa Tiwari C-46, Rajeev Grih Nirflian Samiti, New Rajendra Nagar, P.0. Ravigram, Tah. & Distt. Raipur(C.G.). Origuial appUcaat 397/401 OF THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDCRE READ VfS 19 (41 OF TIffi FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984. (SB :Honlb!e Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri, Anaut Bajpai, Advocate for tfie applicaat. Shri, Vishxiu Koshta, Advocate for the non-applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 02/02/2011^ 1. By fhis crtminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read \vifh under Section 19 (4) of fhe FamUy Court Act, 1984 appUcant has chaUenged ftie legajity and propriety of the order dated 31/8/2006 passed by Firat Additional Prhicipal Judge, Famity Court Raipur in Misc. Case No. 204/2006 whereby learued First Addiuoual Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur has awaxied ttie luaintenance of Rs. 4,500/ - per nionfb to non-applicaat i.e. wife of applicaat. 2. Brief facts necessar\r for disposal offliis criminal revision, applicant and non-applicant are Hindu legally wedded spouse. As per claun of the non- appUcaat, prcsent applicant has deserted her. Non-appUcaut is not having auy nieans for her aiauitenance but applicant having sufBcient nieans is not Biaiatainiiig his wife, on fhe aforesaid ground petition for laaiutenance under Section 125 of tiie Code of Cruniual Procedui-e, 1973 has been filed. '"iSi, S S •^" ^f '*\ By filuig reply, present appUcaat has aileged fhat non-appUcaat is nientally Ul aiid she required examiaation froni nietal hospital. On fhe aforesaid basis, present appUcant has filed petition for divorce which was finaUy disniissed. Non-applicaat is residing separately froui the applicant without any just aad reasonable cause thereTore; she is not entiUed for auy iiiaintenance. 3. After providing aa opportuiiity of hearing to the parties leamed First Additional Principal Judge, FamiSy Court, Raipur has awarded mauitenaace of Rs. 4,500/ - per nionfh to non-applicaat. 4. Shri Anan.t Bajpai, leamed counsel for fhe applicaat and Shri Vishnu Koshta learaed counsel for fhe non-applicant are heard. 5. Leamed counsel for the appUcant subuiits that without any sufficient cause, non-applicant is residiag separately froui her husband i.e. present appUcaat therefore, she is not entitled for any niaintenaace. Pactuin of torture and cruelty has uot been proved by the wife i.e. non-appUcant tlierefore, she is not enUtted for auy inaiatenance. 6. Leamed counsel for the applicant placed reliaiice ia fhe inatter of Deb Harayan Halder v. Snit. Anusluee Halder1 iu which Supreme Court has held that iu absence of any proof of demaad of dowry and cruelty aad the fact that wife left her matrunonial home wifhout any justifiable ground, she is not entiUed for maititenance. 7. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the non-applicant opposed the revision aad submits fhat as per reply of applicant and his evidence, present non-applicant is inentaUy iU and appUcaut himself has left her. Present applicaat has ffled divorce petition, which has been disinissed finaBy. Non-applicant is not residing separately wifhout any just and ' 2003 AIR SCW 4522 l'[l^llll^ 'V..JJ ''"'u'Sv^ rcasonable cause but applicaat himselfhas deserted her therefore, Court below has not cominitted any iUegality wlule graating the maintenance to the non.-appUcaut. 8. As per evidence ofbofh the parti.es, marriage took place ia fhe.year 1992 but witliin few nionfhs of fhe inan-iage, applicant took the non-appUcant to her matemal house on fhe ground that non-applicant is mentaUy abnormal. AppUcaat has also filed divorce petition on the aforesaid groimd which has been finally disinissed. 9. As per evidence ofappUcatit, appUcaat hitaselfhas taken his wife to ber matemal house where he left his wife on the ground of her mental ilhiess in the year 1992. AppUcaat was under obligation to niake arrangement for necessaiy treatinent of his wife in case of mental iUness but appUcaat has not made any efforts for such treataient even appUcaat has not adduced any material or evidence to proof the factum of inental iUness of non- applicant. Blamiug fhe wife fhat she is mentaUy ffl by itself is a cruelty coinmitted by husband aad non-appUcant is entifled for niauitenaace aad separate Uvuig on the aforesaid ground alone. 10. As held ia case of Deb Narayan Halder (Supra) in absence of prove of torture and cruelly aad separate residence of wife without aziy just aad reasonable cause wife is not entitled for uiauitenauce. In fhe preserit case as per atlegation aad statement of the appUcant his wife i.e, non-appUcaat is luentally ill her behavior was abnormal, considering her abnormal aad eratse behavior appUcant was compeUed to shift her from his house to parental house of non-applicaut. AppUcaat bas tried for divorce on tbe ground ofm.ental Ulaess ofthe non-appUcaat but be has not sucGeeded. These allegations and evidence ofappUcaB.t, sbows that noii-appliQaut is not residiag separately witiiout aay justifiable cause aad as per Bis case non-applicaat is not inentally nonnal. Present appUcaat has uot inake auy an'aiigeuient for her inaintenance aad non-appUcaut is left unattended by fhe appUcant. In case of luental abnonnality of the wife aopUcaiit is under obligation to keep fhe wife with him aad provide all possible uiedical faciiities, seciuity to her but in the present case applicant has conipletely failed. Facts of Deb Narayan Halder (Supra) is distinguishable on fhe grouiids of facts. The defease and evideu.ee of applicaut itself raake hini liable for pa^inent of inaiatenauce to non-applicaat and tliat too to the extent of i^quired handsoiae am.ouiit By awarding niaintenaiLce to non- applicant Court beloiw has not comiaitted aay iUegality requiring any uiterference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. ConsequenUy, nriminal revision is liable to be disnussed aad is hereby disuiissed. - - \ ^.s^ 3udSe