Punjab-Haryana High Court
Angoori vs Phool Kumar on 30 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: II(2003)DMC688
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
ORDER V.M. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Angoori Devi against the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, holding that the petitioner-wife was not entitled to any maintenance Under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts in brief are that Smt. Angoori Devi-petitioner had filed a petition Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband-Phool Kumar, respondent seeking Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. In the said petition, it was alleged that the respondent-husband was working in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking and is a Government servant and is getting Rs. 1,500/- per month as salary (this petition is dated 15.3.1986). It as alleged that she was unable to maintain herself and was an illiterate lady. Accordingly, she claimed Rs. 750/~ per month as maintenance Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The said petition was contested by the respondent-husband. It was alleged that the petitioner-wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 25.11.1985 and since then she is living with one Bhim Singh, an ASI in Haryana police and is living in adultery and that she and her paramour, Bhim Singh (dismissed ASI) were living immoral life. It was alleged that she was living in adultery and she was entitled to any maintenance Under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
3. After recording the evidence, it was found by the learned Magistrate that the husband had failed to prove that the wife had any connection with ASI Bhim Singh or with any other person or that she had lived an adulterous life, and after holding that husband was getting Rs. 2,500/- per month as his salary, he directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance to the petitioner wife Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. from the date of the filing of the petition. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Magistrate, Phool Chand-husband filed the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge.
4. After hearing both sides the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.8.1996 found that Smt. Angoori Devi had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and now she was living in adultery (with ASI Bhim Singh) after parting company with her husband and as such she was not entitled to any maintenance Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside. Aggrieved against this order of learned Sessions Judge, Smt. Angoori Devi-wife filed the present revision petition in this Court.
5. Notice in the said petition was issued to the respondent.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before me that on the basis of evidence available on the record it could not be said that the petitioner-wife was living in adultery or that she was not entitled to claim maintenance form the respondent-husband. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, in order dated 23.8.1996, while accepting the revision petition of the husband and setting aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, had referred to the statement of R.W. 2, Smt. Darshani Devi, married daughter of the parties, who had categorically stated that her mother Smt. Angoori Devi is a lady of loose character and was not a family woman and was leading an immoral life. The learned Sessions Judge also referred to the statement of R.W. 5, Rajinder Kumar, who testified that Smt. Angoori Devi under the assumed name of Murti had lived with ASI Bhim Singh as husband and wife in a portion of his house as tenant: The learned Sessions Judge had also referred to the statement of Smt. Angoori Devi before the Magistrate where she had categorically stated that she was not willing to join her husband. After considering the entire evidence led by the parties, it was found by the learned Sessions Judge that there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of R.W. 5, Rajinder Kumar, who had testified that under the assumed name of Murti, Smt. Angoori Devi was staying with Bhim Singh in a portion of his house as tenant. It was also found by the learned Sessions Judge that there was convincing material on the record file to establish that Smt. Angoori Devi left the matrimonial home voluntarily and she was living in adultery after parting company with her husband. Resultantly, it was found by the learned Sessions Judge that she was not entitled to the maintenance Under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the categorical findings given by the learned Sessions Judge, in his order dated 23.8.1996, in my opinion no case for interference by this Court in the present revision petition is made out, especially when the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on evidence available on the record.
9. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.