Balaji Khandu Bansode vs Meera Balaji Bansode
2016 Latest Caselaw 2818 Bom

                                                         *1*                         212.cr.wp.662.06


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                        
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2006




                                                                
    Balaji s/o Khandu Bansode,
    Aged : 25 years, Occupation : Private Service,
    R/o Mahadev Galli, Harangal (Bk.),




                                                               
    Taluka and District Latur.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
              -VERSUS-

    Meera w/o Balaji Bansode,




                                                   
    Aged : 19 years, Occupation : Household,
    R/o Mahalangra, District Latur.   ig                          ...RESPONDENT

                                          ...
                                    
        Advocate for Petitioner : Ms.Supriya Pansambal h/f Shri V D Gunale. 
                         APP for the State : Shri N.T.Bhagat.
                                          ...
       

                                            CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 14th June, 2016

Oral Judgment:

1 The Petitioner/ husband is aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the learned 2 nd Adhoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Latur, by which Criminal Revision No.41/2006 filed by the

Respondent/ wife was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to pay

maintenance to the Respondent/wife at the rate of Rs.500/- per month

from the date of the application.

                                                      *2*                          212.cr.wp.662.06


    2               This   matter   was   admitted   by   this   Court   on   26.02.2009. 




                                                                                     
    However, interim relief has not been granted.




                                                             
    3               The learned Advocate for the Petitioner strenuously submits 

that there was no material before the Revisional Court to cause an

interference in the judgment of the learned JMFC dated 14.03.2006 by

which the application of the Respondent/ wife seeking maintenance

allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was

dismissed.

4 The learned Advocate has taken me through the judgment of

the Trial Court and has pointed out specifically from paragraph 11

onwards to support her contention that there was no evidence before the

Trial Court that the Petitioner was ill-treating the Respondent or that he

had beaten her and that demand for dowry was made. It is further pointed

out from the discussion on oral and documentary evidence in the

judgment of the Trial Court that the contention of the Respondent that she

was being ill-treated within a fortnight of their marriage, was held to be

improbable since according to the learned JMFC, the period of

cohabitation was short to cause ill-treatment to the Respondent.

    5               The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has strenuously taken 





                                                          *3*                          212.cr.wp.662.06

me through the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court and has contended

that in the absence of any evidence of ill-treatment which could be the

basis for the Respondent to leave the marital home out of fear of physical

injury, the Revisional Court could not have interfered with the conclusions

of the Trial Court. She submits that merely because a second view is

possible, the findings of the Trial Court are not to be upset by the

Revisional Court considering the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

None appears for the Respondent/ wife.

7 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for

the Petitioner.

8 The short issue before the learned JMFC was as to whether,

there was any evidence of ill-treatment by the Petitioner and his family

members, which could be a cause for the Respondent to leave the marital

home out of fear of physical injury or out of apprehension of threat to her

life. From the discussion in the judgment of the Trial Court, it appears that

the Trial Court has failed to consider that after the Petitioner began ill-

treating the Respondent, she had rushed to the MIDC Police Station and

had filed the complaint. The allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of

the Petitioner were voiced in the said complaint vide which the

*4* 212.cr.wp.662.06

Respondent had invoked Sections 498-A and 232 of the Indian Penal

Code. The Petitioner in fact has admitted in his cross-examination that the

Respondent had filed such a complaint with the MIDC Police Station on

02.08.2005. This aspect was noticed by the Revisional Court as being

concrete evidence of the contention of the Respondent that she was being

ill-treated by the Petitioner. This aspect was lost sight of by the Trial Court

and which was noticed by the Revisional Court.

Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned

judgment of the learned 2 nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated

31.07.2006 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.)