Mrs Ushabai Subhash Wanve vs Subhash Shankar Wanve
2016 Latest Caselaw 2704 Bom

                                                     *1*                        922.cr.wp.208.05


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                   
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2005




                                                           
    1         Ushabai w/o Subhash Wanve,
              Age : 37 years, Occupation : Houosehold,
              R/o Rohatwadi, now at




                                                          
              Kotan, Taluka Patoda,
              District Beed.

    2         Vanita d/o Subhash Wanve,
              Age : 14 years, minor u/g of




                                               
              her mother Ushabai Petitioner No.1.

    3         Nitin s/o Subhash Wanve,
                                     
              Age : 12 years, minor u/g of
              his mother Petitioner No.1.
                                    
                                                            ...PETITIONERS
              -VERSUS-

    1         Subhash s/o Shankar Wanve,
       

              Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
              Ex-Military-man,
    



              R/o Rohatwadi, Taluka Patoda,
              District Beed.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT  





                                                
                                               ...

    Advocate for Petitioners : Shri S.S.Bora.
    Advocate for Respondent : Shri Fulchand R Tandale.





                                          ...

                                           CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 09th June, 2016

Oral Judgment:

                                                         *2*                         922.cr.wp.208.05


    1               I have heard Shri Bora and Shri Tandale, learned Advocates 




                                                                                       
    for the respective sides at length.




                                                               
    2               Considering the issue involved, I am not required to advert to 

    their entire submissions.




                                                              
    3               It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   Respondent/   husband   secured 




                                                 

divorce against Petitioner No.1 on the ground of adultery. The appeal filed

belatedly suffered rejection on account of the application for condonation

of delay having been rejected by the Appeal Court. Challenge of the

Petitioner to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay was

not entertained by this Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court

in Letters Patent Appeal. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the decree for

divorce on the ground of adultery has attained finality.

4 Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dis-entitles

the wife from seeking allowance for the maintenance if the decree for

divorce is based on a finding of adultery. The wife would, therefore, not be

entitled to receive any amount for the maintenance or interim

maintenance or expenses of the proceedings as the case may be, from her

husband if she is living in adultery.

                                                                *3*                         922.cr.wp.208.05


           5                 It   is   jointly   submitted   that   the   matter   in   between   the 




                                                                                              

Petitioners and the Respondent to the extent of payment of maintenance

in favour of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has been settled between the parties.

6 In the light of the above and considering the law applicable, I

do not find that the impugned order dated 28.03.2005 delivered by the

learned Revisional Court refusing maintenance to the Petitioner No.1

could be termed as being perverse or erroneous.

7 This Criminal Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore,

dismissed. Rule is discharged.

    kps                                                          (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)