The principle that ill-treatment of a wife leading to her leaving the husband's home entitles her to maintenance, and the consideration of the husband's income in determining the maintenance amount.

Hemeon—The non-applicant Sheomala Devi was awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 against her husband Ganesh Sao, the applicant, by the First Glass Magistrate, Ambikapur, under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and his revision application was summarily dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. He has now come up in revision to this Court.

2. Sheomala Devi's case was that from September or October 1947 her husband, who had a Pankin mistress also living in the house, actively disliked her, failed to provide her with food and clothes, had her beaten by a Muslim and turned her out of the house. The applicant's case was per contra that she had of her own accord left him on the 7th December 1947 and taken away considerable cash and ornaments. He had, he claimed, no objection to her residence with him, he denied that he had kept a concubine and asserted that the woman in question was a maid servant who was now in the employ of Kuber, gaontia.

3. Nagwant Sahai (A. W. 2), Sub-Inspector, who had made inquiries regarding the removal of cash and ornaments, found that the applicant's report was false. Chhatan Sao (A. W. 5) and Ramanand Prasad (A. W. 6) testified to the fact that a Muslim had beaten the applicant's wife with a stick and directed her to leave the house.

4. The applicant as N. A. W. 1 repeated the allegation regarding the removal of the cash and ornaments and adhered to the stand taken by him in the written statement. His two witnesses Barjan and Nagina Singh supported him, but he failed to examine Kuber, gaontia. The evidence of Barjan and Nagina Singh was not accepted by the trial Court for reasons which commend themselves to me and I have no doubt of the fact that the applicant's offer to give accommodation to his wife was disingenuous and made in order to avoid an order of maintenance against him.

5. I am in respectful agreement with the following observations of Harries C. J. in Bhagirathi v. Lakshmi Devi, 1940 AIR(Pat) 242In a claim for maintenance it is no defense for a husband to say that he is prepared to take his wife back if the facts show that the wife has reasonable cause for fearing to return to the husband's home. If a wife has been ill-treated and there is ground for believing that if she returns the ill-treatment will continue, then the wife is entitled to live apart from her husband...... Causing a wife to leave the protection of the husband by ill-treatment is tantamount to driving the wife deliberately from the home.

6. These observations are extremely pertinent in the present case in which it is plain that the non-applicant Sheomala Devi was subjected to maltreatment and thereby compelled to leave the applicant's house. Moreover, he had also made against her an exceedingly grave charge of theft which, according to the investigating officer, was false. This too indicated the complete lack of regard he possessed for her and it was in line with his conduct otherwise. It would also appear that he had had her beaten by his Muslim servant on one occasion in order to force her to leave the house.

7. There remains the question of the quantum of maintenance which, as shown, was fixed at the rate of Rs. 20 per mensem from the date on which the application was filed. In awarding that amount the First Class Magistrate, Ambikapur, took into consideration the applicant's various sources of income and I see no reason to differ from his finding thereon. The applicant must be in receipt of an annual income of about Rs. 2,000, if not more, and the award of Rs. 240 per annum on account of maintenance cannot be said to be in any way unduly high. In fact, it works out at the small figure of about Re. 0-11-0 a day and with it, in these days of high prices, the wife will experience difficulty in maintaining herself.

8. The application is dismissed.

Final Result : Dismissed