Bombay High Court
Kalim Mehtab Maniyar vs Nurjanhabee Kalim Maniyar And Ors on 24 August, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 Cri. W.P. 403/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 403 OF 2007
Kalim S/o Mehtab Maniyar
Age : 35 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o Nanand, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur .. Petitioner
Vs.
1] Nurjanhabee W/o Kalim Maniyar
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Household
2] Julekha D/o Kalim Maniyar
Age : 9 years, Under guarding of
Respondent no.1
3] Jilani S/o Kalim Maniyar,
Age : 7 years, Under guarding
of Respondent no.1
All R/o Selu, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur .. Respondents
----
Mr. A.R. Barate, Advocate h/f. Mr. M.P. Gude, Advocate for
the petitioner
Mr. M.L. Dharashive, Advocate for the respondents
----
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 24/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Being aggrieved by the order of maintenance
dated 03/01/2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
2 Cri. W.P. 403/2007
No.50 of 2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ausa and the said order being confirmed by the
learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur vide
order dated 26/2/2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 13
of 2007, the original opponent - husband has preferred
this criminal writ petition.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are as follows :-
. Respondent no.1 alongwith respondent nos.2 and
3 had filed application under section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa vide
Criminal Misc. Application No. 50 of 2006. It was
contended in the application that in the year 2002, the
respondent no.1 wife had filed criminal application no.
24 of 2002 for grant of maintenance, however, the said
application came to be disposed of in view of the
settlement between the parties and accordingly the
respondent no.1 - wife started cohabiting with the
petitioner - husband. She was treated well for some
time and, thereafter, she was again subjected to ill-
3 Cri. W.P. 403/2007
treatment on account of non-fulfillment of an unlawful
demand of Rs.1 Lakh. She was driven out from the house
by the petitioner - husband and since then, she is
residing with her parents alongwith respondent
nos.2 and 3. It has also been contended in the
application that the petitioner - husband has refused
and neglected to maintain her, though he is having
sufficient means and because of the ill-treatment
extended to her, she has just reason to live separate
and claim the maintenance.
. The petitioner - husband has strongly resisted
the said application by filing his say. He has accepted
the relations, however, it has been contended that the
respondent no.1 - wife was not cohabiting with him
properly and she used to go to her parents house without
taking his permission. Furthermore, the respondent no.1
- wife had refused to cohabit with him on the ground
that she did not like him. It has also been contended
in the say that the petitioner - husband has no
sufficient means to pay the maintenance and he earns his
livelihood by working on daily wages.
4 Cri. W.P. 403/2007
. The parties to the said criminal application
lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their
rival contentions. The learned Magistrate vide its
order dated 03/01/2007 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.50 of 2006 has partly allowed the
application and thereby directed the petitioner -
husband to pay Rs.600/- per month to respondent no.1 -
wife and Rs.400/- per month each to respondent nos.2 and
3 i.e. the minor children from the date of application.
. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner -
husband has preferred Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2007
and the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur
vide order dated 26/2/2007, confirmed the order passed
by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the Revision.
Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the lower Court as well as the learned Adhoc Additional
Sessions Judge have not considered the financial
capacity of the petitioner - husband to pay separate
5 Cri. W.P. 403/2007
maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned Judge of the trial Court has awarded
exorbitant quantum of maintenance and the same is
totally against the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner - husband has no sufficient means to pay
the separate maintenance to the respondent no.1- wife
and she has no just reason to live separate and claim
the maintenance.
5.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the order passed by the learned Magistrate and
confirmed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Latur in Revision, calls for no interference.
After considering the evidence on record, the learned
Judge of the trial Court has correctly recorded the
finding that the petitioner - husband has refused and
neglected to maintain the respondent no.1 - wife and
though the petitioner - husband is having sufficient
means, he failed to provide her separate maintenance.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there
is no substance in the writ petition and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
6 Cri. W.P. 403/2007
6. It appears that both the Courts below recorded
concurrent findings on the point that the petitioner -
husband has refused and neglected to maintain the
respondent no.1 - wife and respondent no.1 is unable to
maintain herself and her children. It further appears
that the petitioner - husband is having sufficient means
to pay separate maintenance. Respondent - wife has
produced on record before the trial Court the 7/12
extract, pointing out that the petitioner - husband is
having agricultural land and is personally cultivating
the same. The learned Judge of the trial Court has
specifically observed that the petitioner - husband is
earning Rs.5000/- per month from the agricultural land
and also by doing the labour work in the agricultural
field.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any error
in the order passed by the learned trial Court as well
as the order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional
Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision, while confirming
the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
No interference in the said orders is required.
7 Cri. W.P. 403/2007
There is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the
following order :-
8. Criminal Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
Rule stands discharged.
[V.K. JADHAV]
JUDGE
arp/
