Bombay High Court
Ratnakar Baburao Jadhav vs Rani @ Ratnakar Jadhav on 6 December, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 Cr.Apln. 2252.2004 - [J]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2252 OF 2004
Ratnakar s/o Baburao Jadhav
Age : 37 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o : N-6,M-2,19/2,Sinhagad
Colony, CIDCO, Aurngabad. ..... APPLICANT
VERSUS
Sow. Rani @ Kunda Ratnakar
Jadhav, Age : 25 Yrs.,
Occ. Household, R/o : Dadarao
Plot, Parbhani, Homeopathic
College, Jwala Towers,
Near Vakil Colony, Parbhani. ..... RESPONDENT
.............................
Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for Applicant.
..............................
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 6th DECEMBER, 2016
.............................
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. Heard Mr. V.D.Sapkal, learned Advocate
2 Cr.Apln. 2252.2004 - [J]
for the applicant.
02. The applicant [husband] has assailed the
Judgment passed by the Sessions Court dismissing
the Revision Application filed by him and maintaining
the order passed by the Magistrate, by which the
application filed by the non applicant [wife] u/s 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed and present
applicant [husband] is directed to pay ` 800/-
[Rupees Eight Hundred] per month to present non
applicant [wife] towards the maintenance.
03. According to the applicant [husband], the
Family Court has granted decree on 31/12/2001, by
which the marriage between the applicant and non
applicant is dissolved on the ground that the non
applicant is suffering from 'Schizophrenia' and this
fact is not considered by the sub-ordinate Courts
while up-holding the claim of the non applicant [wife]
for maintenance.
04. On going through the Judgment passed by
3 Cr.Apln. 2252.2004 - [J]
the sub-ordinate Courts, I find that they have not
considered this point. Considering the nature of
dispute, I have examined the conclusions in the
Judgment passed by the Family Court. The Family
Court has recorded that the husband has failed to
prove that the illness of wife was concealed from him
before marriage was solemnized. The decree for
dissolution of marriage is granted on the basis of
evidence of Doctor examined on behalf of the
husband, who has stated that because of the illness of
wife, it would not be possible for the husband to live
with her. It can not be said that the wife has been
residing separately of her own volition and
consequently it can not be said that the wife is not
entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant
[husband].
05. The sub-ordinate Courts have adverted to
the other aspects and have recorded that the non
applicant [wife] is not able to maintain herself and
that the applicant [husband] is having sufficient
source of income to pay the amount of maintenance
4 Cr.Apln. 2252.2004 - [J]
as determined by the Court. The learned Advocate
for the applicant has not been able to point out
illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the
sub-ordinate Courts. I see no reason to interfere with
the impugned Judgment.
06. The Criminal Application is dismissed.
ig In the circumstances, parties to bear their
own costs.
[Z.A.HAQ, J.]
KNP/Cr.Apln. 2252.2004 - [J]
