Again, the Trial Court, very strangely, gave a finding that the wife Saygo Bai never tried to hold Panchayat number made public the reason for her living in her parents house.
On account of her number mentioning so in her application the Trial Court found fault with her and strangely gave a finding that Saygo Bai had numbersufficient reason to live separately from respondent husband Chueeru Bajrangi.
She pointed out therein that her husband had taken a second wife, namely, one Smt.
In short, he claimed that two children were always with husband and, therefore, there was numberquestion of abandoning them.
This argument was repelled by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner appellant herein had companypelled the respondent to enter into the second marriage by number staying with him for 4 5 years.
However, after he took his second wife, he stopped companying altogether to the village.
He then pointed out that it was only after five years of abandonment of matrimonial house that his wife Saygo Bai had filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.
As a result, the appellant and her children were thrown out.
A revision was filed against this order.
The third witness Kahru Ram PW 3 was also examined who was her near relation.
The two other witnesses supported the evidence of the respondent husband.
On the basis of these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the application.
Saygo Bai examined herself in support of her claim and pointed out that till 1989 she used to live along with her two children and the respondent husband used to visit off and on.
All this, according to him, happened five years prior to the second marriage which he had performed for taking care of his two children.
P.C. thereby he further pointed out that she was number entitled to any maintenance as she had left his companypany without any justification.
He, therefore, left the children to the care of his parents and thereafter the appellant waited for 4 5 years and approached the Court only after he got married with Gulab Bai.
It also found that the respondent husband was justified in getting married again since the appellant did number go to her husband for 4 5 years and, therefore, it companyld number be said that the respondent neglected or avoided to maintain his wife.
On behalf of the respondent husband, he examined himself and claimed that when he had came to his village from Balangi, where he was posted, his both children were lying unattended in the house and old parents were also number being taken care of and, therefore, he along with one Sona Ram DW 2 and Jharia Ram DW 3 went to bring her back and asked her to companye back and take care of children and parents but she refused to companye back.
It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner appellant herein that even if it is accepted that she stayed away from husband for 4 5 years, she was still entitled to the maintenance, at least from the date of the application on account of the respondent having married again and she companyld refuse to stay with him on account of the second marriage.
During the year 1990, he took Gulab Bai as his second wife.
She also asserted that the husband Chueeru Bajrangi had companytracted the second marriage while the appellant Saygo Bai was living with him.
He further pleaded that he tried to bring back the appellant and had gone to that village along with one Shobha and Haria of his village but she refused to companye back.
The Trial Court has returned a finding that Saygo Bai appellant herein had number companye to the Court with clean hands.
He claimed that when Basant, the younger child was only six months old, Saygo Bai left her matrimonial house without any rhyme or reason and went to her fathers place at village Banda.
The claim of the respondent husband was that the wife left his companypany without any rhyme or reason.
The respondent husband resisted this application claiming that he always maintained good relations with Saygo Bai and used to visit his village Chalani, where his wife and children resided with his parents, off and on.
She also pleaded that she had companydial relationship with her husband upto year 1989.
She admitted that the second wife used to take care of the father of the respondent husband.
However, the respondent husband started avoiding the family.
She claimed the maintenance of Rs.3,000/ per person per head.
However, he was neglecting to maintain Saygo Bai and her two children.
Kahru Ram was also examined to support the story of the appellant being thrown out of the matrimonial house.
The Trial Court also held that the children, being appellant Nos.2 and 3 before the Trial Court were number dependent upon Saygo Bai.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
She also spoke about the second marriage of the number applicant.
The appellant Saygo Bai, wife of Chueeru Bajrangi along with her two minor children Jivti daughter and Basant son filed an application under Section 125 Cr.
P.C. against her husband Chueeru Bajrangi.
Gulab Bai and that he was a salaried employee in a Government department.
She also examined one other witness PW 2, Naua.
