1 criwp69.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2012
1. Sau. Rekha w/o Vilas Umale,
aged about 35 years, Occupation
Household work, R/o Wan Project,
Tahsil Telhara, District Akola.
2. Ku. Rashmi d/o Vilas Umale,
aged about 12 years, Occupation
Education, R/o Wan Project,
Tahsil Telhara, District Akola.
3. Chi. Adash s/o Vilas Umale,
aged about 10 years, Occupation
Education, R/o Wan Project,
Tahsil Telhara, District Akola.
(Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minor,
hence through her mother). ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Vilas s/o Shravan Umale,
aged about 39 years, R/o At present
address Railway Police Kalyan,
Mumbai, permanent address C/o
Devidas Shrawan Umale, Kaulkhed
Gomashe, Post : Mothe Vadat, Tq.
and District Akola.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
City Kotwali, Akola. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri A.S. Siddiqui, Advocate holding for Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate for the
petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
Smt. S.S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State.
....
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 00:49:11 :::
2 criwp69.12
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
None present for respondent No.1. On the earlier date, her Advocate Shri A.S. Siddiqui holding for Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate had appeared. Record reveals that none present for respondent No.1 on the earlier date though served and thus on the last date, after hearing Counsel for petitioner, the matter was adjourned for today. However, even today, none present for respondent No.1.
2. Challenge in this petition is to impugned judgment dated 11th August, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2010, dismissing the same, preferred by petitioner against rejection of her application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure by learned JMFC, Telhara.
3. As submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears to be her case that she was married to respondent No.1 in the year 1995 and started cohabiting with him and was treated well initially for a few days, however, she was then subjected to ill treatment for non satisfaction of monetary demand of Rs.25,000/- by respondent No.1. It is her further ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 00:49:11 ::: 3 criwp69.12 case that she was also subjected to ill treatment by respondent No.1 suspecting her character. However, she continued to cohabit with said respondent and gave birth to two children. However, she was subjected to ill treatment even thereafter and was thus constrained to live separately.
4. It is the case of petitioner that as she is unable to maintain herself and since respondent No.1 is an Ex-serviceman and presently working after retirement in Railway Police Security Force earning Rs.25,000/- per month, she is entitled for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- for herself and Rs.2,500/- each for her children. However, the learned trial Court rejected her application as well as the learned revisional Court also dismissed the revision without sufficient reason. It is, therefore, submitted that the instant petition be allowed.
5. Perused the evidence recorded by the trial Court. Copies of which are filed in the petition as well as the impugned orders of the Courts below. While considering the application for grant of maintenance, the revisional Court recorded following points for determination :
"(1) Whether the Revision Petitioners/ applicants have proved that the non-applicant has refused or neglected to maintain them without any sufficient cause ?
(i2) Whether the applicants are entitled to get maintenance from the non-applicant ?::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 00:49:11 :::
4 criwp69.12
(3) Whether the impugned judgment and order is just,
proper and correct ?
(4) What order ?"
On considering the evidence on record, replied point Nos.(1) and (2) in "Negative" and No.(3) in "Affirmative" and dismissed the revision.
6. In view of points aforesaid, I have perused the evidence on record. From the evidence of petitioner, it is noted that she had admitted material facts that respondent No.1 while was in military service, used to visit home for a period of about one month in a year. Though in her evidence there are no specific details when he used to visit, from her admission, as aforesaid, petitioner's case of respondent No.1 providing her ill treatment does not stand for any reason as in the absence of any specific evidence to that effect, it cannot be believed that a person, who would be visiting his family for a period of about one month only in a year, would provide ill treatment to his wife or children. This aspect is found more substantiated as it is no case of petitioner that at any point of time she had lodged report with any of the authorities against respondent/husband. In fact, from her further evidence, petitioner has admitted that respondent No.1 was providing her Rs.5,000/- per month for household expenses and further admitted that he had sent Rs.10,000/- by demand draft. She further admitted that while respondent No.1 was in service, transferred ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 00:49:11 ::: 5 criwp69.12 from one place to another, he used to take petitioner with him and as such had taken her to Karnataka, West Bengal during his service tenure. Thus it cannot be believed that after marriage the petitioner was neglected by respondent for non fulfillment of monetary demand of Rs.25,000/- as put forth by her.
7. Petitioner has further admitted that to provide better education to her children, respondent had made arrangement to keep them along with the petitioner at Akola, however, has denied that their children were admitted in convent school at Akola. In view of denial, as aforesaid, respondent has placed on record bona fide certificates issued by Noel Convent School, Akola in respect of their children at Exh.18 and Exh. 28 respectively. From these documents, it is established that the petitioner's minor children are studying in convent school which fact is denied by her. On the contrary, these two documents establish the case of respondent of his making necessary arrangement for providing good education to his children by making their arrangement of stay at Akola and getting them admitted in a convent school. Since petitioner has also admitted that respondent was sending household expenses, this fact is again sufficient to infer that respondent was taking care of his family.
8. From the evidence, it has come on record that during the year 2006, after respondent No.1 retired from service, he had purchased two ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 00:49:11 ::: 6 criwp69.12 wheeler for petitioner so that she can conveniently reach their children to school. In view of the facts, as aforesaid and since petitioner has also admitted about respondent sending demand draft of Rs.10,000/-, which is further established by respondent by placing on record counter slip of bank about his purchasing of demand draft of Rs.10,000/-, amply proves that respondent has taken due care of petitioners at his level best and in fact has never neglected them at any point of time. It is in fact found from the evidence on record that it is petitioner herself who on her own left her matrimonial house without any sufficient cause and started residing with her parents at Telhara. Nothing has been brought by the petitioner to establish as to what required her to leave the rented premises made available to her by respondent at Akola. Similarly, petitioner has also failed to establish as to what required her to remove names of both the children from convent school at Akola and to stay with parents at Telhara. From the evidence, it is found that respondent/husband was providing financial assistance to her and had made arrangement of their stay at Akola, with a view to provide quality education to their children.
9. Having considered above discussed evidence, revisional Court, therefore, appears to have rightly replied point Nos.(1) and (2) in "Negative" and point No.(3) in "Affirmative" and had dismissed the revision petition. I find no irregularity or infirmity or any illegality in the order impugned in this petition. In that view of the matter, the petition is ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 00:49:11 ::: 7 criwp69.12 liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
JUDGE *rrg.
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 00:49:11 :::