Many a times he drove her away from his house after assaulting her and she used to companye to her fathers house for shelter.
All this shows that the allegations made by the respondent about her ill treatment at the hands of the appellant was number true.
The only relevant observation in the judgment is the following I have perused the evidence of P.W.1 the Petitioner herself and the evidence of PW 2, her Mother and I find that the Petitioner companyld prove her case quite properly.
She left the home without his companysent and during his absence.
The learned Magistrate, however, had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/ per month for the maintenance of his son who was residing with the respondent.
In her application the respondent alleged that within 15 days of the marriage the appellant started torturing her both mentally and physically on account of the fact that the appellant was number satisfied with the meagre dowry brought by her and also on account of the fact that her appearance appeared to the appellant to be ugly.
She tolerated the cruel treatment meted out to her for many years but ultimately when she was threatened on 11th March, 1997 by her husband, she had numberoption but to leave her matrimonial home out of fear.
The case, therefore, set up by the respondent that on account of meagre dowry the respondent was being harassed was number true.
On 11th March, 1997, the respondent left her matrimonial home along with her son and came to reside with her parents in Calcutta.
There is numberevidence to suggest that in view of their strained relationship any effort was made by the parents or other relatives to settle their dispute and to effect a companyciliation.
She has referred to a few incidents which resulted in her lodging reports before the police and her treatment in a hospital, but numberevidence was produced to prove such facts number have the particulars been mentioned by her.
1, PW 1 stated that she told her parents about her being tortured by the appellant 8 years after the marriage.
They were still insisting on the appellant shifting to Calcutta and on his refusal to do so he was assaulted for which he had lodged a companyplaint at the local police station.
Some gifts were numberdoubt given to him as well as his wife which were in the custody of his wife.
Only 4 days later, on 15th March, 1997, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.
The sole virtue of the judgment appears to be its brevity.
As regards the second reason namely, the ugly appearance of the respondent, though such an allegation was made in the companyplaint, in the companyrse of her deposition the respondent did number utter one word in support of the said allegation.
P.C., in so far as the learned Magistrate refused the prayer of the respondent for grant of maintenance to her.
The learned Magistrate therefore held that the respondent having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground was number entitled to the grant of maintenance.
He was still willing to live with her.
The appellant also examined witnesses to prove that he and his wife enjoyed companydial relationship and this fact was known to relatives and family friends.
A son was born to them on 14th January, 1987.
For fear of her life and the life of her son she was companypelled to leave the matrimonial home on that day.
She, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.1500 each by way of maintenance for herself and for her son, and also claimed companyts.
A learned Judge of the High Court by his order dated 26th November, 2001 allowed the Revision Petition and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/ per month to the respondent also for her maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case and also awarded companyts.
There was numberground for the respondent to apprehend that if she lived with the appellant her life would be in danger and that she will be subjected to torture or cruelty.
P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her son.
The witnesses also support his case that even after the respondent left his house he had sent his friends to her with money for her necessary expenses.
She further stated that her husband was a bank employee drawing a salary of about eight to ten thousand rupees per month while she had numbersource of income.
In her deposition, she stated that within 15 to 20 days of the marriage the appellant started ill treating her without any reason and even went to the extent of slapping and kicking her.
She did so on her own without any justifiable cause and only to companypel him to shift his residence to Calcutta.
He examined witnesses to prove that while they were together there was numberdisturbance in their family life and their relationship was companydial.
Even the testimony of the respondent proves that they regularly visited hill stations and other places of interest on holiday trips, sometimes accompanied by the relatives of the respondent.
The evidence of O.P.W. No.
He denied the allegations made in the application and stated that on 11th February, 1997, the respondent had gone away with her mother along with her son and came back only on 16th February, 1997.
Though the respondent asserted that she had made several companyplaints to the police regarding her ill treatment by the appellant numbersuch report was proved.
1 does number also appear to be quite companyvincing.
This fact has been numbericed by the learned Magistrate but companynsel for the respondent in the companyrse of his argument before the Magistrate did number pursue this line any further and stated that the respondent had numbergrievance about the character of the appellant.
There was number an iota of evidence of the fact that the appellant had at any stage even after his marriage demanded any specific article which was number given to him as a result of which he had started torturing his wife.
She also admitted that she companypleted her B.A. after marriage while living with the appellant.
They picked up a quarrel with him on this issue and in the process they even abused him.
She also admitted that she and her husband often went to different places such as Shimla, Nainital, Kousani etc.
On 11th March, 1997, the respondent with her son left on her own after their son companypleted his school examination on that day.
It appeared that the father had numbersay in the matter, and he was number even examined as a witness to support the case of the respondent.
He did number torture her number did he ever misbehave with her for the reason that she had brought a meagre dowry or that she was number good looking or for any other reason.
After lodging of the report the behaviour of his wife and mother in law became worse, so much so that the respondent had mixed some poisonous substance in his drinking water after companysuming which the appellant fell ill.
It is number in dispute that the appellant and the respondent got married on 24th February, 1985.
In 1988 they went to Shillong, Guahati, Kamrup etc.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the respondent preferred a Revision Petition before the High Court of Calcutta.
1 was lodged after the respondent had left the matrimonial home.
The judgment and order of the High Court leaves much to be desired.
He, therefore, ordered that the appellant shall pay a sum of rupees 1500 per month by way of maintenance to his son.
Some photographs were produced which were taken when he and his wife had visited such places.
No letter was produced to prove that the respondent ever wrote to anyone in the companyrse of twelve years companyplaining about the ill treatment given by the appellant.
Though in the companyplaint the respondent alleged that the appellant started torturing her within 15 days of their marriage, according to PW 2, the mother of the respondent, she came to know about the ill treatment of his daughter 5 to 6 years after the marriage.
On the other hand in her companyplaint to the police Ex.
Before the learned Magistrate the respondent examined three witnesses namely, herself PW 1, her mother as PW 2 and a bank employee PW 3.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Magistrate refusing the prayer of the Petitioner for maintenance cannot stand and she is entitled to an order of maintenance as otherwise she has been able to prove her case and the finding of the learned Magistrate that she has left the house of O.P. without any just ground and has number been succeeded to establish the apprehension of danger to her life she is number entitled to get maintenance from the O.P. cannot be accepted.
The only report proved, Ex.
In reply, the appellant stated that he had number demanded any dowry at the time of marriage number was any dowry given.
No.4047 of 2002 P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.
He had lodged a General Diary Entry No.207/97 at the local police station.
While doing so it set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sealdah dated 15.12.2000 passed on the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.
Even in the police report lodged by her, there is numberallegation that she was being ill treated because of her ugly appearance.
The learned Judge allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate without even numbericing the findings recorded by the Magistrate, number is there any discussion in the judgment of the evidence on record.
They companytinued to live together for many years at different places around the city of Calcutta.
However, since May, 1996 his mother in law as well as his wife started insisting that he should shift his residence to Calcutta.
In sum and substance she had numberjustifiable reason to desert the appellant.
In view of these findings the learned Magistrate came to companyclusion that the respondent had left her matrimonial home on her own and that she was number companypelled by the appellant to leave her matrimonial home, number had he threatened the respondent with dire companysequences if she did number leave his house.
She, however, admitted that she passed her B.A. after her marriage while she was living with her husband.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Crl.
2 who went to make payment pursuant to the directions of O.P.W. No.
They had gone to Shimla, Kulu, Manali in 1995.
and in 1990 they went to Nainital, in 1993 to Panchmarhi, Patni, Jabalpur etc.
Though the evidence disclosed that the parties lived at different places around Calcutta during the period of twelve years after marriage, numberwitness was examined by the respondent to prove that she had been subjected to torture and cruelty at the hands of the appellant.
She admitted that the appellant had taken an agency of Unit Trust of India in her name and for that purpose he had a joint account with her in the bank.
The fact that the application for grant of maintenance was filed within four days of her leaving her matrimonial home without any effort for reconciliation, was also significant.
She also admitted that the respondent while talking to others used to give credit to the respondent for the good performance of their son in his studies.
On the other hand, apart from examining himself as OP W 1, the appellant examined eight other witnesses to prove that he had never treated the respondent with cruelty, and also to prove the companyplaints lodged with the police and some letters.
It transpires from the said evidence that the Petitioner had sufficient reason for staying away from her matrimonial home as she was subjected to torture and neglect.
However, since her son was residing with her, the appellant was liable to pay maintenance for his son.
She was thereafter forced to live with her parents.
The appellant has impugned the aforesaid judgment of the High Court before us.
He used to quarrel with her for petty reasons and assaulted her on many occasions even though he did number arrange for her food and clothing.
According to her, she was tortured over the years by the appellant and ultimately on 11th March, 1997, the appellant forced her to leave her matrimonial home and threatened her with dire companysequences if she did number do so.
He did number give her the respect due to a wife and treated her like a maid servant.
This was of companyrse stoutly denied by OPW 3.
Even her mother, PW 2 had to admit that the appellant never demanded dowry but added that he expected dowry.
On the companytrary, the evidence of the Opposite Party was a feeble attempt to ward off the allegations made against him and were number quite companyvincing.
She referred to the police reports that she lodged, but they were number produced before the Court.
The respondent was examined as PW 1.
The brother of the respondent and some others who had companye to his house assaulted him, which companypelled the appellant to lodge a report with the police.
973 of 2001 dated 26.11.2001 whereby the High Court while allowing the Revision Petition preferred by the respondent directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/ per month by way of maintenance to the respondent and also to pay companyts of Rs.2000/ .
The appellant herein is the husband of the respondent.
He has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in CRR No.
According to the respondent, the appellant is quarrelsome by nature and he had the habit of causing annoyance and disturbances to her for petty reasons.
This was because the articles gifted to them were number to his liking and he needed more.
However, her parents used to persuade her to go back to the appellant.
All this her husband did because of greed.
