Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Kadar vs Shahina Begum Shaikh Rauf
2016 Latest Caselaw 2869 Bom

                                               1




                                                                                    
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                           
                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.423 OF 2004

    Shaikh Rauf S/o Shaikh Kadar                                        PETITIONER




                                                          
    VERSUS 

    Shahinbegum w/o Shaikh Rauf                                         RESPONDENT 

Mrs.A.N.Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, Advocate for the respondent.

ig ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 15/06/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05/07/2004

delivered by the learned Family Court, Aurangabad by which the

petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance allowance @

Rs.400/- p.m. to the respondent.

2. This petition was Admitted by this Court and interim relief was

refused.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent did not

desire to live with him and she left her marital home within one

month from the date of the marriage which is 20/06/2003. The

petitioner had sent one Rashidbhai to bring the respondent back to

khs/JUNE 2016/423-d

the matrimonial home. She, however, declined. The petitioner,

therefore, divorced the respondent and the Divorce Deed is placed on

record.

4. The petitioner submits that though the learned Family Court

has concluded that the respondent had not refused to live with him

and that the petitioner neglected her, the said conclusion is

unsustainable. It is, therefore, submitted that when the respondent

could not establish that the petitioner illtreated her or drove her out

of the marital home, an order of grant of maintenance allowance

cannot be passed.

5. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the

impugned order is assailed in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Findings on facts arrived at by the learned Family Court cannot be

overturned in revisional jurisdiction unless the impugned judgment

appears to be perverse and erroneous.

6. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has concluded on

the basis of oral and documentary evidence that the petitioner had

illtreated the respondent and cruelty was proved. There was no

evidence to support the contention of the petitioner that he had

khs/JUNE 2016/423-d

legally divorced the respondent. The petitioner had not made any

effort to bring back the respondent to the marital home, in as much

as, the petitioner did not initiate proceedings for restitution of

conjugal rights, if at all he was willing and desirous of co-habiting.

He, therefore, prays for the dismissal of this petition.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

An amount of Rs.400/- per month has been granted as maintenance

allowance w.e.f. 29/12/2003. This Court refused interim relief to the

petitioner while admitting the matter. The amount of maintenance is

a paltry amount.

8. Upon going through the impugned judgment, I find that the

Trial Court has considered the oral and documentary evidence. It

has come to a conclusion that the divorce was not proved by the

petitioner. It was also established that the respondent was illtreated.

These findings on facts ought not to be interfered with unless it

appears that the conclusions drawn by the Family Court are not

based on the evidence recorded in the proceedings. The reasons that

compelled the respondent to live away from the marital home had

been proved before the Family Court. Merely because a second view

is possible, findings on facts cannot be overturned.

khs/JUNE 2016/423-d

9. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition.

Same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/JUNE 2016/423-d