IMPORTANT POINT
A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and customary divorce must be proven; there is no limitation for claiming maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 2018, titled as, Rattan Chand versus Banti Devi, whereby, the Revisional Court has reversed the order dated 27.3.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’)in Petition No. 1-IV/2018/2015, titled as, ‘Banti Devi versus Rattan Chand’.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts, leading to filing the present petition, as per record, may be summed up, as under:

Petitioner, Banti Devi had filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, in her favour, from the respondent, on the ground that she was married to the respondent, about 30 years ago from the date of filing the petition. Out of the said wedlock, parties to the petition were blessed with one son. It is her further case that after some time of the marriage, respondent started beating and maltreating her, on one pretext or the other and ultimately, she was ousted by the respondent from matrimonial home, and she was forced to take shelter in her parents’ house. Thereafter, respondent contracted second marriage with one Premi Devi.

3.1 All these facts have been pleaded to show that respondent is living adulterous life.

3.2 According to the applicant she is a poor lady and has no means of maintenance and livelihood, whereas, respondent is stated to be serving as Teacher and getting a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month.

3.3 On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, be awarded to her.

4. When, put to notice, the petition has been contested by respondent-husband, by taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home. It is his further case that on 8.10.1985, customary divorce has been taken place, between them. Thereafter, petitioner is stated to have solemnized marriage, twice. Firstly, she is stated to have solemnized marriage with one Poushu Ram, and secondly, with one Sai Ram. Now, she is stated to have settled with one Amar Singh, at Sundernagar.

4.1 On merit, the petition has also been contested on the ground that marriage was dissolved by customary divorce, on 8.10.1985. Thereafter, she has solemnized marriage, as mentioned above. All these facts have been pleaded to show that she is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent.

4.2 It is the further case of the respondent that petitioner and respondent have been blessed with one son, Ranjeet Singh. As per the respondent, thereafter, petitioner had solemnized marriage with different persons. She is also stated to have given birth to one Het Ram, whose name has been mentioned, in the records of Gram Panchayat, Tungdhar.

4.3 Rest of the allegations have been denied. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

5. Petitioner had filed rejoinder, denying the allegations that she was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home, and that customary divorce had taken place, on 8.10.1985. She has also denied that she has solemnized marriage firstly, with Poushu Ram, then, with Sai Ram and thereafter, with Amar Singh. She has specifically denied that divorce has ever taken place between them, as divorce can only be granted by the competent Court of Law, under Hindu Marriage Act. Other allegations have also been controverted.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to adduce evidence. In order to substantiate her stand, she had led evidence. Thereafter, respondent has also examined witnesses.

7. The learned trial Cou