SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(MP) 133

R. K. Vijaywargiya, J.
Chandabai v. Mangilal
Cr. R. No. 436 of 1981 (I); Decided on 17-2-1984.

Advocates:
Chandra wade for applicant; Panjwani for non-applicant.

Headnote:Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- wife not proving justifiable reason for Li"Ving separately -- not entitled to claim maintenance.

        The trial court held that the applicant failed to prove that non-applicant treated her with cruelty or that she had a justifiable reason for Li"Ving separately from her husband. In this view of the matter the application submitted by the applicant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court the applicant-wife has submitted this revision.

        Held : Having heard learned counsel for the applicant I have come to the conclusion that this revision deserves to be dismissed. The trial court held that the testimony of the applicant and the witnesses examined by her to prove the fact that the applicant was treated with cruelty and was turned out of the marital home by the non-applicant was not trustworthy.

        The finding recorded by the trial court is based on appreciation of evidence. No illegality or impropriety is shown to have been committed by the trial Court in recording the said finding. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court. As the applicant failed to prove that she had any justifiable reason for Li"Ving separately from the non-applicant her claim for maintenance was rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

        The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the trial Court atleast should have awarded maintenance in respect of the minor son Sanjay Kumar.

        This contention is not well founded. It does not appear from the order passed by the trial Court that the claim for maintenance of Sanjay Kumar was seriously pressed before the trial Court. I, therefore do not think it necessary to consider this matter in this revision. Revision dismissed.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top