AJIT SINGH BAINS, J. - (1.)SMT . Sukhminder Kaur has filed this petition against her husband Sadhu Singh against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana dated 9th July, 1982, whereby the husband's revision petition against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon granting Rs. 150/- as maintenance per month to the wife (petitioner) was allowed.
(2.)THE trial Court had allowed maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to the petitioner but the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the trial Court on the ground that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the petitioner at the instance of Sadhu Singh husband-respondent and later on decree of divorce was also passed against the petitioner at the instance of her husband Sadhu Singh. On the basis of the decree of divorce, it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that as the wife had deserted her husband she was not entitled to the maintenance. This view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous in view of the principle of law as laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Prakash v. Jaswant Kaur, I.L.R. 1981(1) Pb and Haryana 221. In the aforesaid authority, it was held as under :-
"On a simple reading of Explanation (b) to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it would be clear that every divorcee otherwise eligible is entitled to the benefit of maintenance allowance and the dissolution of the marriage makes no difference to this right under the Code. As such a wife divorced by a husband but not re-married is entitled to maintenance under the Code"
No authority taking a contrary view has been produced by the counsel for the husband-respondent although the case was adjourned at this instance.
Sukhwinder Kaur petitioner appeared in the witness box as A.W. 1. She examined her brother and father Hakam Singh and Harpal Singh as A.W. 2 and A.W. 3 respectively. She also examined Dr. P.K. Singla (A.W. 4) and Major Singh (A.W.5). According to Sukhwinder Kaur (A.W.1), she was married to the respondent on 10th March 1978 and after the marriage, the respondent and his father were not pleased with the dowry and she was maltreated by them from the very beginning and was beaten on many occasions. She remained in the house of the respondent for about four months. Her brother had gone to Delhi after three months of the marriage, but he was abused by the respondent and his father and they told him that they would keep the petitioner in their house only if the father of petitioner gave more dowry. After about fifteen days, the father of the petitioner went to Delhi and asked the respondent and his father to keep the petitioner in their house, but they replied in the same tone and demanded more dowry. The father of the petitioner requested them that he had already paid a dowry worth Rs. 35000/- and he is not in a position to pay any more. On this, the respondent threatened that they would kill the petitioner if she is left in their house. So she was brought from Delhi by her father and she was not allowed to bring any ornaments or clothes and that since then she has been living in the house of her father at Jagraon. Even subsequently her father and brother went to the house of the respondent twice and requested him to keep the petitioner, but he did not agree. A Panchayat was also taken on 19th November, 1978 at Khanna in the premises of Guru Angad Steel Rolling Mills. This panchayat was arranged by Major Singh Sarpanch of the village Tussa, who was a mediator in the marriage, but the respondent and his father repeated their demand of dowry and the respondent stated that he wanted divorce. Her statement is corroborated by her father Harpal Singh (A.W.3), her brother Hakam Singh (A.W.2), Dr. P.K. Singla (A.W.4) and Major Singh (A.W.5). She also deposed that she had no source of income and that the respondent had deserted and neglected her.

(3.)THE respondent appeared as his own witness and also produced his father Kartar Singh as R.W. 2 and controverted the allegations of the petitioner. It was during the pendency of the maintenance application that the respondent obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal right under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner from the court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 24th September, 1979, and, sub-sequently obtained the decree of divorce also from the Delhi Court on 6th February, 1981. The application of the petitioner for maintenance was allowed by the trial Court on 14th October, 1981.