Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1529 (BOM)

Ganesh v. Sangeeta

2014-07-14

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present Revision is filed against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad dated 14/12/2000 in petition U/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing No. E-232/1999, whereby the learned Court below was pleased to allow the petition filed by the present respondents U/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Court below was pleased to direct the present applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three Hundred only) per month to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) per month to the respondent No. 2 from the date of the petition U/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also the respondents were entitled to have Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three Hundred only) by way of costs from the present applicant. In the present Revision Application, on 13/03/2001, notice before admission was issued and interim stay was granted in favour of the present applicant. The present Revision Application is admitted by this Court on 20/06/2001. The present Revision Application was called for its final hearing on 07/07/2014. On that day, nobody was present on behalf of the present applicant nor there was any request on the part of the learned counsel for the applicant for adjournment. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is present. On 07/07/2014, this Court adjourned the matter in order to give one chance to the present applicant. At the same time, it was made clear in the said order that if nobody appear on behalf of the applicant on the next date, the Court will proceed with the matter. 2. Today when the matter is called for its final hearing, neither the applicant nor his counsel is present. There is no request on the part of the learned counsel for the present applicant for adjournment. 3. Mr. V.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel is present for and on behalf of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. I have gone through the record and proceedings. 5. On 22/04/1999, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were required to approach before the Family Court, Aurangabad by filing an application U/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since both were neglected by the present applicant and they were unable to maintain themselves. The said proceedings was registered as Petition No.E-232/1999. I have gone through the record and proceedings. 5. On 22/04/1999, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were required to approach before the Family Court, Aurangabad by filing an application U/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since both were neglected by the present applicant and they were unable to maintain themselves. The said proceedings was registered as Petition No.E-232/1999. Undisputedly, the applicant is husband of the non applicant No. 1 and father of non applicant No. 2. The marriage between the applicant and non applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 26/05/1995. Perusal of the application U/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would reveal, for a period of one year though she was given good treatment, however after the lapse of said period, she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the present applicant on account of the demand of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from her. The application further reveals that when the non applicant No. 1 was carrying in her pregnancy at the 7th month, she was driven out by the present applicant and since then she was residing with her parents. A petition U/s. 9 for restitution of conjugal rights was also filed on behalf of the applicant against the non applicant No. 1 bearing Petition No.A-514/1997. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad on 15/01/1999. According to the application, even after the dismissal of the said petition, with a ray of hope that the applicant will give good treatment to both wife and son, they started residing with the present applicant. However, the attitude of the applicant remained to cause ill-treatment, both physically and mentally to the non applicant No. 1. Ultimately, on 19/04/1999, both the non applicants were driven away from the matrimonial house by the present applicant, resulting into taking shelter by them in the parental house of the non applicant No.1. According to the application, that necessitated her to file proceedings for maintenance, because the applicant is bodily able person and though having sufficient means to maintain the non applicants, has not made any arrangement for their maintenance. It was pointed out in the application that the present applicant is working in Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad and he is getting Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) per month by way of salary. 6. It was pointed out in the application that the present applicant is working in Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad and he is getting Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) per month by way of salary. 6. On being summoned, the applicant put his appearance and filed Written Statement before the Family Court, Aurangabad. Sum and substance of the Written Statement is that of denial. According to the applicant, in the Written Statement, the applicant has stated that he is ready to maintain the non applicants. However, it is the non applicant No. 1 who is not residing with the applicant. 7. With these basic pleadings, both the parties went for trial. Both the applicant and non applicant No. 1 entered in the witness box in order to substantiate their respective case. From the evidence of the non applicant No. 1, it is clear that nothing is brought on record to disbelieve her evidence. 8. The sole contention, it appears in the grounds of Revision, is that the non applicant No. 1 on her own has deserted her matrimonial house. Such bald statement can not be accepted. Since, if the applicant was really interested in maintaining the non applicants and if he was ready for cohabitation, he could have again initiated proceedings U/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. On the contrary, the earlier application U/s. 9of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court clearly shows that the applicant is trying the issue of desertion, as mere excuse to deny the rightful claim of the non applicants. 9. The evidence of the applicant does not show that he has made any effort and/or any arrangement to maintain the non applicant No. 2, who is son. Both the wife and the child are entitled for their maintenance at the hands of the applicant. The applicant being the husband and father is obliged to maintain both of them. Since the applicant has utterly failed to point out any circumstance or to prove his case that it is the non applicant No. 1 who has deserted his company, the applicant can not skip his liability to maintain the non applicants. Learned Family Court has considered the evidence and pleadings correctly and in its true perspective. Since the applicant has utterly failed to point out any circumstance or to prove his case that it is the non applicant No. 1 who has deserted his company, the applicant can not skip his liability to maintain the non applicants. Learned Family Court has considered the evidence and pleadings correctly and in its true perspective. Perusal of the Judgment and Order of the Family Court does not reveal that any perversity is crept in the said order. 10. In the result, the present Criminal Revision Application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and the interim stay granted dated 13/03/2001 is hereby vacated. Rule is discharged.