Gulabrao Nagorao Ingole vs This Application Takes Exception ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 88 Bom

                                             1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                       
                 Criminal Application No. 3897 of 2007




                                                               
    Gulabrao Nagorao Ingole,
    Aged 69 years,




                                                              
    Occupation - Nil,
    R/o Near Dnyaneshwar Mandir,
    Arvi Naka, Gajanan Nagar,
    Wardha, Tahsil & District Wardha.                               .. APPLICANT




                                                
               .. Versus ..

    Dwarkabai Gulabrao Ingole,
    Aged 57 years,
                             
    Occupation - Household Work,
                            
    R/o Jamni, Post-Akoli,
    Tahsil-Seloo, District-Wardha.                          .. NON-APPLICANT

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for the applicant,
      

    Mr. A.V. Bhide, Advocate for the non-applicant.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   



                                    CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J.

    DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT  :- 05-12-2009





    DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT :- 15-12-2009


    JUDGMENT

1. This application takes exception to the judgment and

order dated 13th September, 2007 passed by the Court of

Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.109/2005. It is

further prayed by the applicant that the judgment and order

dated 11th August, 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

class (2nd Court), Wardha, in Misc. Criminal Application No.

19/2004 should be confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

The non-applicant herein is the original applicant before

the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha. She is

legally wedded wife of the original non-applicant and their

marriage was solemnized before about 40 years back in the

year 1961. After the marriage the original applicant started

cohabiting with the original non-applicant at his house. From

this wedlock, the original applicant and original non-applicant

had no issue. Since 40 years there was no dispute between the

original applicant and the original non-applicant but since last

two years the original non-applicant started to ill-treat the

original applicant and beat her. There was a quarrel about one

year back and then the original non-applicant drove the

original applicant from his house. She started to reside at

Jamni in her parents' house.

3. It is further case of the original applicant/wife that at

about three months back, she had been to the house of original

non-applicant with intention to cohabit with him, but he did not

allow her to stay in a house. Therefore, she again returned to

Jamni. She is old aged lady and is unable to do any thing. She

has no source of income. Further the original non-applicant

during the span of two years did not provide any money for her

maintenance. According to the original applicant, he is in

Government service and earns handsome salary. The original

applicant/wife requires Rs.1,500/- per month towards her

maintenance.

4. The original non-applicant/husband filed his reply at

Exhibit 10. He has denied that the original applicant is his

legally wedded wife and she resided with him for 40 years.

There was no ill-treatment by the original non-applicant since

last two years and he did not drove her out of the house about

one year back. The original non-applicant submitted that the

original applicant was married with him on 25/6/1961.

Thereafter the original applicant came to his house and resided

2-3 days only. There is no cohabitation for 2-3 days. Then the

original applicant went to her parents' house at Jamni for

Aakhadi festival. Since then the original applicant never came

to the house of original non-applicant to live married life.

Thereafter there was a divorce between them on 14-7-1965 as

per the customs prevalent in their society. In view of this

divorce, the original applicant has given up her right of

maintenance from the original non-applicant. Since the date of

divorce the original applicant is residing with her parents. After

the divorce, the original non-applicant has performed second

marriage with one Durgabai from whom the original non-

applicant has begotten five children. In such circumstances,

the original applicant is not entitled to get any maintenance.

5. According to the original non-applicant/husband, he is

now retired from his services who was working as a Instructor

in I.T.I., Nagpur. His two sons are running Tea Canteen. The

original non-applicant has also filed proceedings in Industrial

Court, which are pending. Due to this pendency, the original

non-applicant is not getting any pension from his services. He

has no source of income. Therefore, he is not able to give any

maintenance to the original applicant. Therefore, the original

non-applicant prayed that the application is liable to be

rejected.

6. The trial Court has framed as many as five points for its

determination and the application filed by the original

applicant/wife came to be rejected.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

11-8-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (2nd

Court), Wardha, the non-applicant herein wife filed Criminal

Revision No.109/2005. The revisional Court by judgment and

order dated 13-9-2007 allowed the revision and the order

passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class( 2nd Court), Wardha

came to be set aside. The application for maintenance filed by

the wife came to be allowed. Hence, this criminal application

filed by the applicant/husband.

8. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant

submitted that the marriage with non-applicant has taken place

on 25-6-1961. After the marriage, the non-applicant resided

with the applicant for a period of 2-3 days. There was no

cohabitation. The applicant tried his level best to convince the

non-applicant, but she refused. Therefore, the parties decided

to get separated and they executed divorce agreement as per

their custom on 14-7-1965 in presence of witnesses.

9. The learned Advocate invited my attention to Clause (6)

of the said deed and submitted that the case filed by the

applicant for restitution of conjugal rights against the non-

applicant Dwarkabai by will came to an end. The learned

Advocate further submitted that in cross-examination, the non-

applicant Dwarkabai admitted that after the marriage, she

resided for four years and thereafter she started residing with

her parents at Jamni. She also admitted that thereafter she

never went to reside with the applicant Gulabrao.

ig She also

admitted that she never went to reside with the applicant. She

has also stated in her cross-examination that she has written

the application as per instructions of her Advocate. It is further

submitted that the non-applicant made a false statement in

paragraph 2 of the application for grant of maintenance. In

fact the non-applicant has written in the said application that

there was no dispute between the applicant and non-applicant

since from last 40 years. But the applicant from the last two

years started to ill-treat the non-applicant and beat her without

any fault on her part. According to the learned Advocate the

statement is totally contradictory to the findings given by both

the Courts below and therefore, it shows the conduct of the

non-applicant while approaching the Court.

10. It is further submitted that the revision is filed

suppressing the fact for mutual agreement of divorce. The

non-applicant filed application under Section 125 of the

Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance before the

Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (2nd Court), Wardha. The

Judicial Magistrate First Class (2nd Court), Wardha has rightly

held that there is no evidence on the part of the present non-

applicant that the present applicant deserted her and

neglected her. On the contrary, it has been held that she is

residing separately from the present applicant at her own

accord. It is further held that the non-applicant has not proved

that the applicant is getting pension and therefore, the

application for maintenance filed on behalf of non-applicant

has rightly been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class

(2nd Court), Wardha.

11. It is further submitted that the Sessions Judge, Wardha

has not framed the essential point while entering and deciding

the revision filed by the present non-applicant. The learned

Advocate invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment

of the Sessions Judge, Wardha and submitted that, the Sessions

Court in said paragraph has stated that, "it is admitted position

that marriage of Dwarkabai took place 40 years back and

admittedly Dwarkabai is not residing with Gulabrao and she

was not residing with Gulabrao when the application was filed."

12. It is further submitted that it is important to note that in

the present case Gulabrao never neglected or refused to

Dwarkabai. When divorce took place, that time Gulabrao was

not married second time. It is by consent and agreement the

parties have chosen to reside separately and admittedly for

last 4 years before filing of application and even prior to filing

of application Dwarkabai never resided with Gulabrao and this

fact has been admitted by her in her cross-examination.

Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the reasoning

given by the Sessions Judge, Wardha is not sustainable in law.

13. It is further submitted that sub-section (4) of Section 125

of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that, "no wife shall be

entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this

section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient

reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are

living separately by mutual consent".

14. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the

judgment reported in case of Malayaiah v. Smt. G.S.

Vasantha Lakshmi and others, 1997 Cri.L.J. 163 and

submitted that in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it has been

stated -

"Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in cases

where the husband and wife live separately by mutual consent".

15.

The learned Advocate further submitted that when the

wife is living separately on her own accord with her parents

and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by husband and

husband has not refused or rejected the wife to maintain and it

has not established by wife then grant to maintenance by wife

by revisional Court without giving reasons is not proper.

16. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the

reported judgment of this Court in case of Sanjay Sudhakar

Bhosale v. Khristina Sanjay Bhosale, 2008 Cri.L.J. (NOC)

833 (BOM.).

17. The learned Advocate further invited my attention to the

reported judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Mamgain v.

State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 725

(UTR.). Therefore, the learned Advocate for the applicant

submits that this matter required consideration. The

application deserves to be allowed by setting aside the

impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional Court.

18. The learned Advocate appearing for the non-applicant

submitted that the application under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicant is not

maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. It is further

submitted that, it is pertinent to note that under Section 397 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, if the non-applicant had preferred

a revision and the revision was allowed, the applicant could

only file revision against the decision of the revisional Court.

Since it becomes the first revision filed by the husband who

was the respondent in the revision filed by the wife.

19. The learned Advocate invited my attention to the

reported judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

case of Balbir Kaur alias Hamir Kaur, 1983 Crimes 952.

On the basis of the said judgment, the leaned Advocate

submits that the revision is maintainable if both the revision

applications are not filed by the same parties. Therefore, the

learned Advocate submits that the statutory remedy under

Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. was available but was not invoked by

the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot

invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when

alternate remedy is available.

20. The learned Advocate in support of his contention relied

on the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 SC 47. It is

further submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482

cannot be invoked when alternate remedy is available. The

criminal application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as not

maintainable.

21. The learned Advocate further submitted that though the

contention of the applicant that there was divorce as per

customs on 14-7-1965 such custom was not proved as per the

judgments of the Courts below. The applicant/husband as per

his pleadings performed second marriage with Durgabai in

1966. Due to such admissions given by the applicant, it is

evident that the non-applicant Dwarkabai could not cohabit

with the applicant since 1966. Thus, on the basis of the

applicant's own pleadings, it is established that the non-

applicant had never deserted the applicant.

22. It is further submitted that admittedly the applicant was

in Government Service and is getting pension. The applicant

has two sons from his second wife and are running a Tea Stall

and are not dependent on applicant.

ig The daughters also got

married and are not depending on the applicant. Since both

the Courts below have held that the marriage of the applicant

with non-applicant was not legally dissolved as it was not

established that there was a custom of getting divorce by

mutual consent. Thus, it was rightly held by the revisional

Court that the applicant is liable to pay maintenance to the

non-applicant/wife. It is further submitted that the wife can

claim maintenance at any point of time and there is no

limitation as such for filing application for maintenance.

23. The learned Advocate in support of his contention relied

on the reported judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in

case of Golla Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamma and

another, 1991 Criminal 1533. The learned Advocate,

therefore, submits that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held

that 'there is no limitation period for claiming maintenance

under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.' It was also held that 'plea of

waiver is not available to husband'. Therefore, the wife has

rightly filed the application for maintenance and same has

rightly been entertained by the revisional Court.

24. The learned Advocate further submitted that, in the

alleged divorce deed, there was stipulation about the

relinquishment of right of maintenance, however the said

contention is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Punjab &

Haryana High Court in the reported judgment in case of Rajnit

Kaur v. Pavittar Singh, 1992 Cri.L.J. 262 held that "such an

agreement between the husband and wife is opposed to public

policy and is not valid under the provisions of 125 of Criminal

Procedure code." Thus, it was rightly observed by the

revisional Court in para 8 of the judgment that the document

purportedly is of no value in the eye of law.

25. The learned Advocate further submitted that the

applicant is staying with his second wife since 1966, the non-

applicant had a valid reason to stay separately from her

husband and it cannot be said that the non-applicant has

deserted her husband without reasonable excuse. It is further

submitted that as per Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., the non-

applicant had sufficient reason for living away from the

husband. The word "cruelty" in old Cr.P.C. has been replaced

by the words "sufficient reason' in Cr.P.C. 1973. Thus the

Sessions Judge has rightly held that there was desertion by the

wife in the instant case.

26. The learned Advocate further submitted that as per

definition of "wife" in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, "if the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and

she has no remarried, she will be entitled to maintenance

allowance." It has come on record that the non-applicant has

not remarried and therefore, she is unable to maintain herself

and therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the

application deserves to be dismissed.

27. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the

applicant and non-applicant at length. Perused the application

and annexures thereto and documents made available by the

parties and also the case law relied on the subject. After

perusal of criminal application which was filed on behalf of the

non-applicant/wife for grant of maintenance it is clear that, the

non-applicant is legally wedded wife of the applicant and their

marriage was solemnized before fourty years i.e. in the year

1961. So far ill-treatment meted out by the applicant to non-

applicant is concerned, the relevant pleadings in application

are as under :-

"It is submitted that there are no issues

to the applicant from the non-applicant during their wedlock. It is submitted that there were no disputes between

the applicant and the non-applicant during the residence of the applicant with the non-applicant from last fourty years, but it is submitted that the applicant from the last two years

started to ill-treat the non-applicant and beat her without any fault on her

part. Accordingly, the non-applicant, before one year picked up quarrel with the applicant and gave filthy abuses to her and ultimately drove out of the house and did not allow her to enter

the house. There being no alternative the applicant was required to shift her residence at Jamni, Tahsil-Seloo, District-Wardha and since then she is living at Jamni"

28. In reply to aforesaid averments in the application for

maintenance filed by the non-applicant/wife, the

applicant/husband herein in para 2 of the written statement

filed on 30th June, 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Wardha has stated thus :-

" The alleged applicant is not the wife

of the non-applicant and hence no question of wedlock and no question of issues. It is false that the alleged applicant and non-applicant resided together since last 40 years and there

was no dispute."

In the said para, it is further stated that -

"The alleged applicant never resided with the non-applicant in any year

since last fourty years up till now and hence no question to drove the alleged applicant out of the house."

To para 4 of the application for maintenance, it is replied

by the applicant/husband that -

" It is false that the alleged applicant is

legally wedded wife of non-applicant".

29. Therefore, in reply to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the

application for maintenance, the applicant/husband even

denied the factum of marriage between the parties. It means

as stated by the applicant/husband himself that the non-

applicant is not the wife of the applicant and there is no

question of wedlock and no question of issues. However,

surprisingly in paragraph 8 of the written statement it is further

stated that,

"It is submitted that the alleged applicant Dwarkabai was married with the non-applicant on 25-6-1961. Then

the alleged applicant came to the house of the non-applicant and resided about 2-3 days. It is submitted that there was no cohabitation and even not consumed marital life with the alleged

applicant during 2-3 days since the marriage dated 25-6-1961."

In the said paragraph, it is stated that,

"Thereafter the alleged applicant and the non-applicant took divorce as per

the custom on 14-7-1965 in presence of the witnesses and they have singed on that divorce deed. As per that divorce deed dated 24-7-1965 the alleged applicant never come to the

house of the non-applicant for leading marital life with the non-applicant."

30. On careful perusal of paragraphs 2, 4 and 8, it would

clearly reveal that, the applicant herein who was non-applicant

before the Court below has taken different stand on oath in the

same written statement filed on his behalf. Therefore, the

question would arise, whether this Court should exercise

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code

to entertain the application on behalf of a person who

approaches with two different stands through his written

statement before the competent Court ? Certainly the

applicant who takes contradictory stand before the competent

Court has not approached the Courts below with clean hands.

Therefore, the conduct of the applicant disentitles him for

invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. It is apparent that by taking different

stands in paragraphs 2, 4 and 8 the applicant/husband has

certainly misled the competent Court.

31.

The Courts below have recorded the findings that there

was a marriage between the applicant and non-applicant in the

year 1961. The contention of the applicant/husband that there

was a customary divorce between the parties, has been

negated by the revisional Court. There is no separate

adjudication by any competent Court on the point of customary

divorce and even no specific point was framed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class while entertaining the contention of the

applicant/husband that there was a customary divorce and as

per the term in the said divorce deed, the wife is not entitled

for the maintenance. It is admitted position that, there was no

legal divorce between the parties. Therefore, the revisional

Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment held that,

"After going through the record, it appears that original of the said

document was brought by Gulabrao at the time of evidence. On the basis of that this xerox copy was exhibited.

However it is material to note that there is absolutely no evidence on record about any such customary divorce. I find that the said document has no legal sanctity. Thus, the

document purporting to be a divorce deed is of no value in the eye of law and hence that is of no help for deciding the dispute between the

parties."

32.

On perusal of the contents of the application and upon

hearing learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, no case

is made out to upset the aforesaid findings recorded by the

revisional Court. Therefore, there was no legal divorce. The

customary divorce has not been proved by the applicant by

way of bringing any evidence on record about any such custom

to take such customary divorce.

33. Even assuming for a moment that there was a divorce

between the parties, it would be relevant at this juncture to

refer to the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, AIR 1999 SC 2374. The

Hon'ble Court in paragraph 7 held thus -

"Even though was unable to prove that husband has remarried, yet the

fact remained that the husband was living with another woman. That would entitle the wife to live

separately and would amount to neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain her. Statement of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for

the husband to prove otherwise."

34. It clearly follows from the aforesaid observation of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the husband is remarried and

living with another woman that itself entitles the wife to live

separately and would amount to neglect or refuse by the

husband to maintain her.

In the instant case, it is admitted position that, the

applicant has remarried with some another woman. Therefore,

in the facts of this case it was not necessary for the wife to

prove that, the husband has neglected or refused to maintain

her. In fact as per the aforesaid pronouncement, the burden

was on the husband to prove otherwise. That apart the

statement of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself

was sufficient and it was for the husband to prove otherwise. It

is also well settled by this time that, even the divorcee woman

is entitled for the maintenance if evidence is brought on record

to that effect and as long as she is not remarried. In the

instant case, the revisional Court has recorded the findings that

there was no legal or customary divorce between the parties.

Therefore, once the finding is recorded that there was no

customary divorce, then the second question would naturally

arise that, if the husband has remarried during the subsistence

of first marriage, whether the wife is entitled for the

maintenance ? This question is already answered by the

aforesaid discussion and by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, AIR 1999

SC 2374 cited (Supra).

35. In the light of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, AIR 1999 SC 2374 cited

(Supra), the findings recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class that the wife failed to establish that husband has refused

and neglected to maintain wife has to be discarded.

36. Coming to the another aspect of the matter that whether

the applicant/husband is having sufficient source to maintain

the wife to pay the maintenance is concerned, it is admitted

position that the applicant/husband was working in the

Government Department and he is receiving pension. In

absence of any assertion in his reply before the Courts below

that he is earning a particular amount, the inference drawn by

the revisional Court that the wife is entitled for Rs.1,500/-

towards maintenance and the applicant/husband has sufficient

source to pay Rs.1,500/-, is correct finding recorded by the

revisional Court which needs no inference. The

applicant/husband did not approach the Courts below with

specific assertion that he is getting specific amount of pension

or he has limited source of income by bringing on record about

his source of income. Therefore, the revisional Court has

rightly held that the applicant/husband is having sufficient

source of income to pay the maintenance amount to non-

applicant/wife. It would not be out of place to take the note of

written notes of argument filed on behalf of the non-

applicant/wife that the applicant was in Government service

and is getting pension. The applicant has two sons from

second wife and they are running tea stall and not depending

on applicant and the daughters of the applicant from second

marriage have also got married and are not depending on the

applicant.

37. The applicant has contended that the wife has

approached to the Court for claiming maintenance after 40

years from the date of their separation. In support of his

contention the learned Advocate has relied on the reported

judgment of the Karnataka High Court in case of Malayaiah v.

Smt. G.S. Vasantha Lakshmi and others, 1997 Cri.L.J.

163. According to the applicant, since there was divorce the

non-applicant/wife is not entitled for the maintenance. The

learned Advocate, therefore, relying on the aforesaid judgment

and submitted that if there is a divorce, the wife is not entitled

to claim the maintenance. In fact is not necessary to give a

specific findings on this point since the aforesaid judgment

refers to 'divorce by mutual consent' and in the instant case,

the wife has denied the fact of divorce. That apart, as already

observed in foregoing paras that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has by back in 1999 held that 'even the divorcee woman is

entitled for the maintenance.'

38. The another point which is raised by the learned

Advocate for the applicant that there is a gap of fourty years

and after that application for maintenance is filed is concerned,

the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Golla

Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamma and another, 1991

Cri.L.J. 1533 held that -

"Section 125, Cr.P.C. has not restricted the period to claim maintenance. When statute has not prohibited wife to claim

maintenance within any period of limitation, the husband is not entitled to plead that his wife has waived her right to claim maintenance due to long lapse of 10 or 12 years after she left his

house. Due to the changed circumstance in her parents' house, her parents may not be willing to maintain her and they may not be in a position to

maintain her since other children have grown up and some other problems might have cropped up in her family.

Under these circumstances the husband is not entitled to raise the plea that the wife is waived her right to claim

maintenance after a long lapse of 12 years".

39. The learned Advocate for the applicant has further

argued that no separate points were framed by the revisional

Court on each aspect while entertaining the revision

application filed by the non-applicant/wife is concerned, the

perusal of findings recorded by the revisional Court would show

that, the revisional court has discussed and has given findings

on each point though technically specific points were not

framed on each aspects of the matter. Since proceedings

under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are some

ought of civil nature, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply

to the said proceedings and therefore, the contention of the

applicant that no specific points were framed by the revisional

Court and therefore, the said judgment and order is not

sustainable in law, is required to be rejected.

40. The learned Advocate appearing for the non-

applicant/wife has raised a preliminary objection about

maintainability of the criminal application by the husband

against the judgment and order passed in revision by

contending that, the revision is maintainable before this Court

and therefore, this Court may not entertain this application

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is

concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent

pronouncement in case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products

Limited and others v. State of Maharashtra and another,

(2009) 2 SCC 370 held that though the remedy of revision

under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available,

that itself would not debar the High Court from exercising the

powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Therefore, I do not find any force in the said submissions

advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the

applicant/wife.

41. The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the

applicant that in view of the conditions in the divorce deed, the

wife was not entitled to claim maintenance, it has been already

discussed herein above that the theory of customary divorce

has been negated by the revisional Court when there is no

legal divorce between the parties. There is no question of

following any condition as contended by the leaned Advocate

appearing for the applicant. That apart, the Punjab & Haryana

High Court in case of Ranjit Kaur v. Pavittar Singh, 1992

Cri.L.J. 262 held that such an agreement between the

husband and wife is opposed to public policy and is against

clear intendment of provisions of Section 125."

42. In the above background and discussion herein above,

the application filed by the applicant/husband challenging the

judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Wardha in

Criminal Revision No.109/2005 dated 13-9-2007 deserves to be

rejected.

43. In my considered view, the revisional Court taking into

consideration the documents as well as the evidence brought

on record and after appreciating rival contentions has rightly

allowed the claim of the non-applicant/wife.

Therefore, the Criminal Application stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

The miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed

of, in view of the dismissal of the main application.

JUDGE

adgokar