The duty of the husband to maintain the first wife, especially when he desires to remarry and has sufficient earnings.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition claiming for the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgments dated 16.10.2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Case Udaipur and judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (South) Udaipur may kindly be set aside with all consequential directions and interim orders may kindly be set aside consequence thereof applications as indicated herein above may kindly be allowed and further appeal filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married to respondent no. 1 in the year 1990 and they had one daughter (Tanu) out of the matrimonial relationship in the year 1994. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement of divorce was drafted between the petitioner and his wife on 19.07.2000, which was like a compromise and one time alimony of Rs. 50,000/- was stated to be given under the agreement aforesaid. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the maintenance deposit in FD No. 0094237 of Mewar Anchalik Gramin Bank, Debari Branch, Udaipur was called for by the learned trial court but details were not given by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in para-6 of the claim petition, the wife has required Rs. 5,000/- for her and Rs. 5,000/- for her daughter-total Rs. 10,000/- whereas the daughter is now married and, therefore, no more maintenance is required for the daughter. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in accordance with 125(4) Cr.P.C., the respondent is not entitled to seek any maintenance as she wilfully left her husband's house. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the compromise, the wife's needs were settled, thus, any further reason of demand is contrary to the law. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by both the parties before learned court below were contrary to the jurisdiction as the appeal did not lie.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree halder reported in AIR 2003 SC 3174, decided on 26.08.2003, relevant para whereof reads as follows:-

"19. We have also perused the evidence on record with a view to ascertain whether for any other reason the respondent was ill treated by the appellant. We have found from the evidence on record that the behaviour of the appellant has been throughout normal. It is admitted by the parties that they frequently went during vacations to visit different places. On some occasions they were even accompanied by the relatives of the respondent. The appellant permitted the respondent to continue her studies even after her marriage and that is how she secured her B.A. degree after marriage. He also arranged an agency of the UTI to keep her engaged and also opened a joint account in a bank which she could operate. All these facts go to indicate that for several years after their marriage they enjoyed normal marital relationship. In fact, there is evidence to show that the appellant used to praise his wife in the presence of others by complimenting her and giving her credit for the good performance of their son in his studies. This even the respondent has admitted in the course of her deposition. Apart from these we find it difficult to believe that if the appellant started torturing the respondent within 15 days of the marriage, the respondent would not have reported this matter at least to her mother. According to her mother, she came to know about her ill treatment 5 to 6 years after marriage. According to the respondent in her complaint Ex. 1 s