Urmila @ Meenakshi Rajkumar ... vs Rajkumar Dhondiram Nilawar & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1750 Bom

                                                                          276..03crrevn
                                           -1-




                                                                             
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                     
                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 276 OF 2003

     1.       Urmila @ Meenakshi w/o Rajkumar Nilawar,
              Age: 25 years, Occ: Household,
              R/o. Jamb (Bk), Tq. Mukhed,




                                                    
              Dist. Nanded.

     2.       Yogita d/o Rajkumar Nilawar,
              Age: 7 years, minor under
              Guardianship of her real mother




                                         
              Urmila @ Meenakshi w/o Rajkumar
              Nilawar, Age: 25 years, Occ: Household,
                             
              R/o. Jamb (Bk), Tq. Mukhed,
              Dist. Nanded.                                   ...Applicants

                      versus
                            
     1.       Rajkumar s/o Dhondiram Nilawar,
              Age: 29 years, Occ: Service,
              R/o. Nitur, Tq. Nilanga,
              Dist. Latur.
      


     2.       The State of Maharashtra.                       ...Respondents
   



                                           .....
              Mr. D.D. Sarvade Patil, Advocate holding for
              Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for applicants





              Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for respondent No.1
              Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2
                                          .....





                                             CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

                                             DATE :      22nd APRIL, 2016
     ORAL JUDGMENT :

Parties to the proceedings married on 27/05/1994 and

out of the said wedlock, female issue was given birth, by name

Yogita.

276..03crrevn

2. Regular Civil Suit No. 904 of 2000 came to be filed by

applicants Urmila and Yogita seeking declaration and injunction for

setting aside the registered divorce deed dated 03/03/1997 on the

ground that the said registered divorce deed was got executed by

playing fraud.

3. The above referred civil suit came to be dismissed on

03/08/2002 and it is informed that no appeal was preferred against

the judgment and decree of dismissal of the said suit.

4. The applicant-wife initiated proceedings under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from

the present respondent-husband vide Misc. Criminal Application

No. 27 of 1997 seeking maintenance of Rs.500/- per month each, to

present applicant Nos. 1 and 2, which was objected by the

respondent-husband. Learned Magistrate, by an order dated

10/01/2001, has allowed the application and ordered that the

maintenance of Rs.500/- per month be paid to the wife and Rs.300/-

per month to the daughter, from the date of filing of the application.

5. In Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2001, the order of learned

Magistrate granting maintenance was questioned, which revision

276..03crrevn

came to be allowed, by the judgment and order dated 09/05/2003.

As such, present revision application under Section 397 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

6. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the applicants

that the divorce deed which was a registered instrument is not

admissible in law. He would then submit that the divorce deed was

registered by practicing fraud and by making misrepresentation to the

applicants. He would then urge that the change in circumstances

entitled the present applicants to claim maintenance, even if the

alleged divorce deed is considered to have been executed. He then

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the

matter of K. Pandian vs. A. Savithiri reported MADLJ 1998 1 760.

Based on the said judgment, he would submit that the provisions of

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are available to a

woman in distress, the section confers right to claim maintenance for

future.

7. Mr. Kudale, learned Counsel for the respondent-husband

would invite attention of this Court to the judgment of dismissal

passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur in Regular Civil

Suit No. 904 of 2000 at the behest of present applicants being

plaintiffs against respondent, wherein declaration and injunction was

276..03crrevn

sought as regards registered divorce deed dated 03/03/1997.

According to him, the plea was raised before the said Court that

divorce deed is sham and bogus document and was not executed by

playing fraud on the present applicant-wife, the said contentions were

negated by learned Civil Court after appreciating the evidence. He

would then submit that the learned revisional Court has gone into all

facets of the matter and has noted that the divorce deed as was

executed and registered and payment of money i.e. one time alimony

was very much established.

8. Having bestowed my thoughts to the submissions made,

it is required to be noted that once a plea as regards declaration of

the alleged divorce deed to be sham and bogus document is turned

down by the competent Civil Court after appreciating the pleadings

and evidence of the parties and since the said verdict is not

questioned by the present applicants before any higher Court, the

same has attained finality. In view thereof, it is not permissible for the

present applicants to canvass in the present proceedings that the

registered divorce deed was sham and bogus document.

9. It is then required to be noted that under the divorce

deed in question, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was already paid to the

present applicant-wife. It is then required to be noted that parties to

276..03crrevn

the proceedings have arrived at settlement in the application

preferred under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

pursuant to the deed of divorce, as was executed.

10. It is then required to be noted that learned Sessions

Judge, having taken note of the two important aspects i.e.

compromise recorded in Misc. Criminal Application No. 39 of 1997

before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nilanga and decree of

dismissal of the suit preferred by the present applicant-wife, has

proceeded to allow the revision. In my opinion, the revisional Court

has not committed any error of jurisdiction or has not exceeded the

jurisdiction, rather no case for interference on that count, in revisional

jurisdiction before this Court, is made out. As such, Criminal

Revision Application fails and stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Sd/-

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]

Tupe/22.04.16