KAN SINGH, J.—This is a revision application by a husband against an order of maintenance in favour of the wife under sec. 488 Cr. P. C. passed by the First Glass Magistrate, Ganganagar.

2. Malkiyat Singh, the petitioner husband, was married to non-petitioner Gaijkaur sometimes in the year 1961. After their marriage Gaijkaur and Malkiyat Singh lived together at Malkiyat Singhs house. Malkiyat Singh was living with his father in village Chak 414, Tehsil Karanpur. The relations between the husband and the wife could not remain smooth after sometime and they became bitter. Gaijkuar did not find the conditions at her husbands house tolerable and was forced to leave her husbands roof and started living with her father in village 46, Tehsil Karanpur. Thereafter there was litigation between the husband and the wife whereas the wife applied for maintenance under sec. 488 Cr. P. C. in the court of the learned First Glass Magistrate at Ganganagar the husband applied under sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Good sense seems to have prevailed later on and a compromise was effected between the two. The terms thereof were reduced to writing. It is Ex. D. 3 on record and is dated 10-2-65. It is in the form of an application by Gaij Kaur. So far as the husband was concerned his brother had executed a deed of surety ensuring the good behaviour of the husband Malkiyat Singh towards Gaij Kaur. On the basis of that Gaij Kaur agreed in her application Ex. D. 3 that as good relations between the two had been restored, she would go back to her husbands home. In the body of the application it was averred that her husband Malkiyat Singh had executed a bond that he would not give her any trouble and would keep her with affection It was further averred therein that because of Malkiyat assuring the good behaviour good relations between the two had been restored and she would consequently go back to her husbands house. After the application Ex. D/3 was presented before the learned District Judge, another application Ex. D/l was presented before the learned Magistrate wherein Gaij Kaur prayed that the proceedings be dropped, as she did not want to prosecute that on account of a compromise between her and her husband.

3. It appears that the matters did not improve and the parties again fell out. About the circumstances in which it was not possible for Gaij Kaur to return to her husband the two are speaking with divided voices. Gaij Kaurs case was that her husband was not returning to her the ornaments that he had taken from her and consequently she was not prepared to go to him. She insisted on the return of the ornaments first and she had told this to her husband when he visited her on two occasions at her fathers house but the husband expressed his inability to return the ornaments saying that they had been pledged and he was unable to redeem them. Thereafter the husband came to her house along with three other persons and they carried fire arms and wanted to take her away forcibly. After this alleged incident Malkiyat Singh made a fresh application under sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned District Judge for restitution of conjugal rights by his wife. Gaij Kaur resisted that application on the ground of cruelty. The plea of cruelty prevailed with the learned District Judge. He accordingly dismissed the application on 44-66 vide Ex. P/l. On dismissal of this application Gaij Kaur applied before the learned sub Divisional Magistrate under sec. 488 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance on 14-6 66. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence of both the parties. He came to the conclusion that Malkiyat Singh had neglected his wife. Looking to the financial condition of the family to which Malkiyat Singh belonged the learned Magistrate awarded Rs. 125/- per month as maintenance to Gaij Kaur. After giving the gist of evidence led by both the parties the learned Magistrate observed as follows:—

Click Here to Read the rest of this document