9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge against quashing of maintenance order based on second marriage of husband. Interpretation of desertion in matrimonial law. Admissibility of additional evidence in Section 482 proceedings. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the quashing of a maintenance order by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, the wife, sought maintenance after the trial court found that the respondent-husband had contracted a second marriage, providing a justifiable ground for the petitioner to live separately and claim maintenance. The respondent's second marriage was established through witness testimonies and the priest who performed the marriage. The respondent's counsel contested this finding, arguing lack of specific pleading and timing of the second marriage. However, the revisional court, in a peculiar logic, concluded that it was the wife who had deserted the husband, hence not entitled to maintenance. The petitioner's counsel argued that the finding of desertion was erroneous based on the evidence. The wife had gone to her parents due to her mother's illness, a situation that cannot be deemed as desertion under matrimonial law. Desertion, as defined, requires intentional permanent forsaking without consent and reasonable cause. The wife's stay with her ailing mother, coupled with the husband's second marriage, provided sufficient reason for her to live separately, justifying the maintenance claim. The judgment emphasized that proceedings under Section 482 should not turn into full trials. The respondent's attempt to introduce fresh evidence, a photostat copy of an unrelated order, was deemed impermissible and undesirable at that stage. The court reiterated that the focus should be on whether there was a valid reason for the wife to live apart from her husband, rather than delving into new evidence. Criticism of the evidence regarding the second marriage was dismissed, highlighting that the revisional court's decision was flawed due to a misunderstanding of the legal concept of desertion. Ultimately, the impugned order disallowing maintenance was quashed, and the petition was allowed with costs. The judgment underscored the incorrect interpretation of desertion by the lower court and the inadmissibility of additional evidence in Section 482 proceedings, leading to the reversal of the decision and reinstatement of the maintenance order for the petitioner.
|
