1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2004. Judgment reserved on: 16.07.2008. Date of Decision: July 21st, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ Kishori Lal. Petitioner. Versus Nirmala Devi and another. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the Petitioner : Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. FdAor the respondents : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surjnder Singh, J. In the instant petition, the petitioner-husband has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, passed in revision petition filed by the respondent-wife, whereby trial court only qua her was reversed and she was awarded the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- per month from the date of petition and qua minor respondent it was modified to the extent holding him entitled for the maintenance amount of Rs.500/- from the date of petition instead of the date of order as ordered by the trial court. According to the petitioner-husband, the learned Sessions Judge has acted with material illegality and committed a grave error of jurisdiction in presuming certain facts in favour of the opposite parties, whereas the record demonstrates that it is the respondent- wife, who despite making sincere efforts did not resume the marital ties. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record in order to test the legality and propriety of the impugned order. The relationship inter-se the parties is not disputed. According to the respondent-wife, after the marriage both of them lived nicely. She got impregnated, but thereafter her husband started maltreating her and he had been consuming liquor and torturing her. Therefore, she had to take refuse into the house of her parents in village Lapha and gave birth to a male child named Prakash, but the petitioner-husband did not turn up there and also did not provide any maintenance nor called her back. Since her husband had neglected to maintain her and the minor child and both were unable to maintain themselves, therefore sought the maintenance. Her contention was resisted and contested by the petitioner- husband. In his reply, he averred that it was her father who took her to his house, when he went to call and resume the martial ties, her father did not allow her. Otherwise also respondent-wife was having sufficient means to sustain her life, whereas, he is simply a labourer and cannot pay the maintenance amount without resuming the marital ties by her. The respondent-wife examined herself as her own witness and the petitioner-husband besides examining himself produced Moti Ram (RW2) and Smt. Goldi Devi (RW3). While corroborating her version, the petitioner testified on oath that when she got pregnant thereafter the behaviour of her husband became indifferent towards her, after consuming the liquor he had been beating her and did not provide any provision and clothings, thereafter, she went to the house of her parents, where she delivered a child. Her husband did not bother to provide any maintenance to her. Even he did not turn up at 3 the time of delivery of the child. When her child Prakash was only 8 months old, on the asking of her parents, she went to the matrimonial home in the month of Baisakh 2001 and stayed there for one month, this fact has been admitted by the respondent in his cross-examination. According to her, her husband again started consuming liquor and torturing her. Then she returned to the house of her parents’ alongwith her minor child. Her husband did not care for anything. She stated that petitioner-husband was engaged in the vegetable business and earned Rs.5,000/- per months. She denied in her cross-examination that when her husband had gone to register the marriage, in the Panchayat her father objected to it, which allegation appears to be wrong and baseless. She also denied that Leela Dhar, Pradhan and Sher Singh Rana had visited alongwith her husband her parental house to take her back to the matrimonial home. Contra, Kishori Lal petitioner examined himself and stated that his father-in-law took the respondent to his own and thereafter he did not send her back. He went to the house of her in-laws alongwith Block Samiti Chairman (now dead) name is not mentioned, in the month of April, 2001 and he also gave a bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, but he again did not send her with them. He had revisited them alongwith Moti Ram Chowkidar, but her father objected to sending her with them. He also stated that the respondent had been earning about Rs.2,000/- per month by weaving the shawls. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his father-in-law had visited in the month of March, 2001 and took the respondent, on the pretext that her mother was running fever. At that time, respondent was pregnant. He has admitted that his wife delivered a son in the year 2001, but stated that during this time, he visited her thrice and had sent the ration etc. to her alongwith a Bond of Rs.10,000/-. 4 RW2 Moti Ram has stated to have accompanied the petitioner- husband to the house of in-laws of Kishori Lal, but she was not sent. RW- 3 Smt. Goldi Devi has stated that the father of the respondent-wife did not allow the petitioner-husband to register there marriage in the Panchayat and she was not being allowed to resume the marital ties by her father. On the strength of the aforesaid evidence, as already stated above, the trial Court allowed the maintenance only to respondent No.2 and not respondent-wife, that too from the date of order, which in my opinion was rightly set-aside qua the wife and modified in favour of the minor as aforesaid, for the valid reasons. From the evidence on record, it appears that the main allegation of the petitioner-husband is against father-in-law, that he did not allow her to resume the marital ties, whereas, from the evidence on record, the contention of the petitioner-husband does not appear to be correct and bonafide. The maintenance to the wife is her right, which cannot be denied to her subject to certain exceptions. In the instant case, the respondent-wife on her sole testimony establishes the neglect and refusal to maintain by her husband. It is evident from the record that even after the birth of the child, she had resumed the marital company of her husband and lived with her husband for one month but she had to go back to the parental house on account of maltreatment and the indifferent behaviour of the petitioner-husband. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are remedial and summary in nature. The respondent has not shown that he was not an able bodied man, therefore, he is required to maintain his wife and the child. Thus, in my opinion, the first revisional Court has rightly appreciated the facts on record, in the light of established principles of law and has committed no error while appreciating the evidence. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order 5 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 21, 2008. (Pds)