1. An application was filed under Section 125, Cr. P.C by Smt. Saroj Devi claiming maintenance from her husband Krishna Murari on the allegations that she was the legally wedded wife, and that he treated her with cruelty and neglected to maintain her. Further allegation were that Krishna Murari was at first employed as a teacher in the Primary School drawing Rupees 60/- per month, but subsequently he secured employment in the State Bank of India and began getting a salary of about Rs. 800/- per month, which increased his financial status. It was alleged that for the first 3 years of marriage nothing untowards happened, but after his employment in the State Bank the applicant began to develop loose habits and also began to develop illicit intimacy with one Kumari Radha. The wife objected to this, but without any result. On the contrary, the husband look exception to this objection and began to treat her with cruelty and had beaten her. He even took her and left her at Pinhat with his brother-in-law, where she was mentally tortured and not even provided adequate food and clothing. Thereafter the applicant came to her poor father and has been living with him. Her father is unable to maintain her and she has no means of livelihood. Hence the claim of maintenance.
2. These allegations were denied by the husband. He denied that he had been cruel to his wife; that he had given a beating and that he neglected to main-lain her. He was willing to keep his wife with him.
3. He alleged that his monthly emoluments were Rs. 390/85 paise. He also denied his liability to pay maintenance to his wife.
4. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the allegations of beating and cruelty, alleged by the wife, had been fully established. Accepting the statement of the husband that he was earning a sum of Rs. 390/80 paise per month, he has awarded a maintenance allowance of Rs. 100/- only to Smt. Saroj Devi. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, which has been allowed on 22nd January 1979. Hence this revision.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the impugned orders. I have also scrutinized the application, Sled by Smt. Saroj Devi under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C, as also the other documents on the record. I have also been taken through the oral evidence of the case.
6. The trial court had recorded a specific finding on a consideration of the evidence on the record that the husband had treated Smt. Saroj Devi with cruelty and had beaten her. He had also left her at his brother-in-law's place, where she was denied the bare necessities of life. In this manner, she has been tortured not only physically but also mentally. On these findings, he has awarded maintenance allowance. The Sessions Judge has upset pure findings of fact on a re-appraisement of the evidence on the record for which there was no justification. The reasoning of the Sessions Judge is perverse. He has observed that because no report was lodged with the police and because the injuries, alleged to have been caused to Smt. Saroj Devi were not medically examined by this doctor, therefore, her case of cruelty Should not be accepted. These reasoning are devoid of merit, and ignore the normal and natural conduct of Indian women living in their homes, when cruel treatment is meted out to them. It is very unusual and extremely rare to find them running out of their house to lodge a report with the police and to get themselves medically examined. Normally such torturous actions are borne with a sigh. In my opinion, the reasoning of the Sessions Judge is perverse, and cannot be accepted. He has acted illegally in setting aside a finding, of cruelty recorded by the trial court.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even assuming that Smt. Saroj Devi was beaten once by her husband, that would not mean cruelty. His submission is that in order to constitute cruelty, there must be a systematic and sustained beating by the husband, which would lead to a reasonable apprehension of danger to life and limb. In support of this argument, he has cited a decision of this court, reported in 1979, All LJ 1208, Kaliya v. Hira (sic). This argument, in my opinion, is not worth consideration at all. It is devoid of any merit. The decision cited by learned counsel referred to above, does not any where lay down that unless the beating given to the wife is systematic and sustained, it would not amount to cruelty. On the other hand, the decision clearly indicates that after the amendment of old Cr. P.C, the word “habitual” was deleted and just grounds were substituted. This observation, itself, indicates that the old concept of habitual beating which learned counsel seeks to propound now in no longer good law. The wife is entitled to live separately if she is treated with cruelty. Cruelty need not always be physical and it can also be mental. Further in order to be cruel to your wife, it is not necessary that you must give repeated beating. Even a single incident of cruelty and torture is good enough to entitle the wife to a separate residence and maintenance. In my opinion, there is no merit at all in this submission.
8. I further find from the scrutiny of the evidence on the record that Smt. Saroj Devi has stated that she was beaten a number of times, not only with the hand, but by sticks. On one occasion, she was given such a severe beating that her Saree was blended with blood. She has also urged that at the point of knife, she was made to sign blank papers. I fail to understand as to what further allegations would be necessary to constitute cruelty. This statement of Smt. Saroj Devi inspires confidence and has been rightly accepted by the trial court. I have no reason to disbelieve her. As such she is clearly entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the allegation of Smt. Saroj Devi is that her husband is earning about Rs. 800/- per month, Krishna Murari has stated that he is getting salary of Rs. 390/80 p. Even if the statement of Krishna Murari is accepted, an amount of Rs. 100/- which constitutes only ⅓rd the income of the husband, is by no means an excessive amount of maintenance permitted to the wife. I find no reason to interfere even on this ground.
9. This revision application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge is set aside and that of the trial court restored.
10. Application allowed.