Kisan Baburao Mahabole vs Ushabai @ Indubai Kishan Mahabole
2016 Latest Caselaw 2677 Bom

                                                          *1*                         212.cr.wp.237.06


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                         
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 237 OF 2006




                                                                 
    Kisan s/o Baburao Mahabole,
    Age : 59 years, Occupation : Agri and Service,
    R/o Horti, Taluka Tuljapur,




                                                                
    District Osmanabad.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
              -VERSUS-

    Ushabai @ Indubai w/o Kishan Mahabole,




                                                   
    Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household,
    R/o Horti, Taluka Tuljapur,      
    District Osmanabad.
    At present C/o Tulshiram Ganpati Devkaran,
    At Post Aalmala, Taluka Ausa,
                                    
    District Latur.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT

                                                 ...
       

                            Advocate for Petitioner : Shri D G Nagode. 
                                   None for the Respondent. 
    



                                                 ...

                                             CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 09th June, 2016

Oral Judgment:

1 Though this petition was admitted by this Court on

11.04.2007, interim relief was refused.

2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2005

delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa vide which

*2* 212.cr.wp.237.06

the maintenance of an amount of Rs.1000/- was granted to the

Respondent. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 09.01.2006 delivered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions

Judge, Latur by which Criminal Revision No.72/2005 filed by the

Petitioner was dismissed.

3 Shri Nagode, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has

strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. The contention is that the

Trial Court has casually allowed the application under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure by which the Respondent had sought

maintenance from the Petitioner. The earning capacity of the Petitioner

was not considered. Several factual details though are noted in the

impugned order, have not been considered.

4 He further submitted that the specific contention of the

Petitioner that one Girjabai was his only wedded wife and he had not

performed any marriage with the Respondent on 09.05.1977, was ignored

by the Trial Court. He further submits that the Revisional Court failed to

note the perversity in the conclusions of the Trial Court and has

mechanically dismissed the revision petition.

    5              He adds that on the one hand, the factum of marriage was 





                                                       *3*                         212.cr.wp.237.06

denied by the Petitioner and on the other hand, his earning capacity and

his advanced age was not considered by both the lower Courts. He,

therefore, prays that both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and

set aside.

6 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for

the Petitioner.

It is trite law that interference by this Court in the findings on

facts arrived at by the Trial Court is not permissible only because a second

view is possible (Read Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil,

2010(8) SCC 329 and Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and

others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 : 2015 (3) SCALE 88).

8 The Trial Court considered the contention of the Petitioner

that he was allegedly married to Girjabai. It was concluded on the basis of

evidence that the Respondent established her marriage with the Petitioner

on 09.05.1977. There was hardly any evidence before the Trial Court with

regard to the alleged marriage of the Petitioner with Girjabai. The father

of Girjabai stated in his oral evidence that he had no knowledge, whether,

the Petitioner had married the Respondent prior to his alleged marriage

with Girjabai. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded on the basis of

*4* 212.cr.wp.237.06

evidence that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate his marriage with

Girjabai.

9 Insofar as the earning capacity of the Petitioner is concerned,

the Trial Court had noted that he was working as Secretary of Vividh

Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

He owned and possessed the land admeasuring about 6 to 7 acres at

villages Chikundra and Verti, Taluka Tuljapur. It was noted that the

Respondent had no source of income and was also suffering from illness.

10 Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned

judgments of the Courts below could be termed as being perverse or

erroneous. This Criminal Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore,

dismissed. Rule is discharged.

    kps                                                          (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)