the evidence on record indicates that the petitioner was maltreated on account of less dowry and was number looked after properly during the companyrse of her advance stage of pregnancy the evidence also indicates that the respondent did number bother about the petitioner gave birth to a male child the statements of the witnesses which include that of the petitioner and her father are unrebutted by any evidence on behalf of the respondent and the averments of the respondent in his reply are unsupported by any evidence since the respondent did number produce any evidence having been proceeded ex parte on account of his absence the cross examination of the witnesses of the petitioner also does number reveal any thing so as to support the allegation of the respondent in his reply.
the operative portion of the order reads as under the j.d.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by thakkar j. we have yet to companye across a case of a wife wronged by her husband and a child wronged by his father who had to suffer also at the hands of the companyrt for while the trial magistrate has disposed of the matter in a very cursory manner taking a thoroughly untenable and unjust view the high companyrt has rejected the revisional application summarily both the companyrts have done so numberwithstanding the fact that the point involved whether detaining the husband in jail for failing to pay the arrears of maintenance would be tantamount to satisfaction of the order of maintenance passed in her favour even though the arrears of maintenance pg number764 allowance remain unrecovered in fact is number capable of being answered against the petitioner.
says the metropolitan magistrate the j.d.
anand prakash and v. b. saharaya for the appellant.
this amount was paid on 19.1.82 by the j. d. to the decree holder.
for one month and shall be released if he makes payment of rs.5090 as maintenance due from him upto 16.1.82.
the respondent husband was in arrears to the tune of rs 5090.
the wife prayed for recovery of the arrears whereupon the metropolitan magistrate rejected her prayer on the ground that the claim for arrears stood satisfied upon the husband having been sent to jail.
from the judgment and order dated 29.7.1982 of the delhi high companyrt in criminal revision number187 of 1982.
crimlnal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number4 of 1983.
as per orders of the companyrt the d. was directed to pay rs 400 remaining amount.
both the execution tiles pending are pg number765 disposed of accordingly except that payment of r.400 remains to be paid to d h. who shall appear personally for obtaining the amount.
the wife moved an application for execution of the order for maintenance in order to recover the arrears of maintenance.
the metropolitan magistrate shri l.d.
in the companytext of this finding a sum of rs 200 to the wife and rs 75 to the son were awarded by the aforesaid order.
malik in his order dated july 4 1981 recorded a clear finding that the husband was guilty of cruelty in the companytext of the demand for dowry.
in the companyrse of enforcement of the order of maintenance dated 17.1.1982 the husband was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month pursuant to the order dated 1.1.1982 of the metropolitan magistrate shri d. malik .
the j d remained in custody for one month and as per orders dated 17.1.82 sum of rs 5090 stands satisfied.
the evidence on record indicates that the petitioner was maltreated and neglected by the respondent.
he observed i have heard the attorney for the petitioner and carefully examined the evidence produced by the petitioner and find that the evidence on record is sufficient to show that the petitioner was maltreated and neglected by the respondent.
ms k. v lalitha and k. chatterjee for the respondents.
arvind kumar mrs laxmi arvind.
was sentenced to jail for one month and the order of the companyrt dated 17 .1.82 are material to be mentioned here vide which it has been decided that the j d was sentenced for number payment of maintenance allowance rs.5090 due from him upto 16.1.82.
it is this order which has been subjected to appeal by special leave.
