Honble GUPTA, J.–This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 26.10.1996 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner u/S. 125 Cr. P.C. holding that she has no just cause to live separately on the ground of contracting second marriage by the husband.

(2). The undisputed facts are that petitioner Mumtaz Begum was married to Yusuf Khan on 25.3.88. There was trouble in the marital relations. Yusuf Khan started keeping one Smt. Roshan Begum as his wife after performing `Nikah. The petitioner filed an application u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. stating that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and as he has married again it was not possible for her to live with him and she was entitled to maintenance. The case set up by the husband- respondent was that he did not cause cruelty to the petitioner and she herself left the matrimonial home. The learned Judge, Family Court framed three issues which are to the following effect:-

(i) Whether petitioner Mumtaz Begum is unable to maintain herself.

(ii) Whether respondent has sufficient means to provide maintenan- ce to the petitioner.

(iii) Whether the respondent has neglected the petitioner.

(3). Both the sides led oral evidence. The learned Judge found issues no. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner. Issue no.3 was decided against the petitioner on the ground that a Muslim husband can have four wives at a time, and therefore, there is no just cause for the petitioner for not living with her husband. He, therefore, refused maintenance to her.

(4). Mr. Acharya contended that on the basis of the Personal Law maintenance could not be denied to the petitioner u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. He relied on the cases of Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1) and Begum Subanu @ Saira Banu vs. A.M. Abdul Gafoor (2).

(5). Mr. Gehlot, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial Court. According to him, the Personal Law permits a husband to have more than one wife and it cannot be just cause for a Muslim wife not to live with her husband on the ground that he has contracted second marriage.

(6). I have carefully considered the above arguments. Conjugal house cannot be maintained and run smoothly unless both the spouses act with self-restraint and have respect for the feelings of each other. In matrimonial relations, it is expected of both the spouses to behave in such a fashion that ones behaviour or conduct does not become an irritant or a source of mental agony to an other. No self respec- ting woman would like that her husband may contract a second marriage. If second, third or even fourth marriage is permissible under Mohmendan Law, a Mohmedan male may indulge in that luxury. For that he may not be liable for offence of bigamy, but if such a behaviour proves to be an irritant to his wife and if the same becomes a source of mental agony to her, he cannot take shelter under his personal law and say that he is not liable to pay maintenance to his wife living separately. The Explanation to sub sec. (3) of Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. does not make any difference between one party or the other. Nor is there any indication to show that it applies only to parties governed by the law of monogamy. The Criminal Procedure Code is a general law giving a summary and speedy relief to the destitute wife and children who are entitled to be maintained by the husband. One cannot read into the Explanation what is not found in it because some hardship of inconvenience is caused to a husband governed by the personal law.

(7). The Apex Court in the case of Shah Bano (supra) has clearly held that the explanation to the second proviso to S. 125(3) Cr.P.C. confers upon the wife the right to refuse to live with her husband if he contracts another marriage. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that Section 125 Cr.P.C. overrides the personal law, if there is any conflict between the two. The legal position has been stated in the case of Saira Banu (supra) which is reproduced hereunder :-

``T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document