Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1754 (BOM)

Suresh v. Shobhabai

2015-07-31

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2015
JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, dated 18.1.2001 in Petition No. E-731 of 1999, whereby the learned Judge of the court below was pleased to allow the petition filed by the present respondent partly and directed the applicant to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month from November, 1999 and to pay costs of Rs. 500/-, the applicant has filed the present revision. I have heard Shri S.D. Hiwrekar, learned counsel for the applicant/husband Shri D.D. Pokharkar, learned counsel for respondent/wife. 2. On 25.11.1999, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Aurangabad. The said application was registered as Petition No. E-731 of 1999. According to the pleadings of the said application, the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 4.5.1998 at Takli Jivrag, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad as per the Hindu rites. In the said marriage, the parents of the respondent incurred expenditure about Rs. 60,000/-. After the marriage, she went for her marital cohabitation in the house of applicant at Nagapur. Barring for two months of their marital life, the applicant started causing her illtreatment both mentally and physically, however, with false hope that some day the attitude of the applicant will be changed towards her, she sustained the atrocity on her. Ultimately, on 20.11.1998 she was driven out by the present applicant after giving good beating. Even thereafter her parents tried to reconcile the matter, however, in vain. Lastly on 18.11.1999, the wife along with her relatives reached to the house of the applicant, however, at that time also she was not allowed to enter into the house and she was driven away. 3. According to the wife, the applicant/husband is a driver getting Rs. 3,000/- per month by way of salary. He is also having 4 acres of irrigated land and also has avocation in the milk and from that he is getting 4,000/- to 5,000/- rupees per month. 4. On being summoned, the present applicant has filed his written statement, which is at Exh. 8. The allegations made by the applicant/wife were denied. According to the applicant, on her own she has deserted her matrimonial house and thereby she is disentitled to claim any maintenance. 4. On being summoned, the present applicant has filed his written statement, which is at Exh. 8. The allegations made by the applicant/wife were denied. According to the applicant, on her own she has deserted her matrimonial house and thereby she is disentitled to claim any maintenance. According to the written statement, he has sent two notices to the respondent, however, those notices were not claimed. 5. The respondent entered into witness box and substantiated her pleadings. In the evidence, it was brought on record that the applicant has got married on second occasion, and therefore, she is not now ready to go and reside with the applicant. According to the learned counsel for the applicant/husband, the application filed on behalf of the wife was not maintainable, in as much as according to him, without there being any cause, excuse or any reason, the wife herself on her own is not residing with her husband. Therefore, she cannot claim maintenance. 6. In order to substantiate his argument, the learned counsel submitted that in cross-examination of the respondent she has admitted that the father of the applicant had been to the parental house of the respondent/wife, however, she did not return to her matrimonial house. Further, according to the learned counsel, the notices issued by the applicant calling upon the respondent to resume the company of the applicant were not claimed by the respondent and that shows her attitude not to join the company of the present applicant. 7. It appears that in cross-examination, the respondent has replied positively to the question put to her that the father of the present applicant had been to her house to bring her back. However, she has explained that, that time the father of the present applicant gave abuses to her and her father. Now, the father of the applicant would have been the best witness to support the stand of the present applicant to depose that he had been to the parental house of the respondent to fetch her and at that time no abuses were given by him either to the respondent or her father, but for the reasons best known to the applicant, his father did not enter into witness box. Therefore, though it appears that the father of the applicant had been to the place of the respondent, however, in view of the evidence, which remained to be unchallenged of the respondent, at that time the father of the applicant gave abuses to her father, the applicant cannot take the advantage of such statement made by the respondent in her cross-examination. 8. Though the sealed packets are placed on record, however, there is no evidence adduced by the applicant in respect of the contents of that sealed packets. The evidence shows that two notices were issued, however, those notices are not placed on record. Therefore, the court below as well as this court have no opportunity to know the contents therein. 9. The learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, on the available evidence and material on record has correctly reached to the conclusion that the respondent was forced to part with the company of the applicant, and therefore, she is entitled for the maintenance. 10. Further, the applicant has not denied his occupation as driver. Though the extent of the agricultural field is denied in the evidence by the applicant, he has admitted that 1½ acres land stands in the name of his father. The applicant has miserably failed to point out that any other person is dependent on him. 11. In the totality of the circumstances, the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court correctly reached to the conclusion that the respondent/wife has proved her case and has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The approach of the learned court below is based on the available material on record. Further, the quantum is meagre. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, I am of the view that no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.