Bombay High Court
Ravindra @ Rupesh Jankilal Sharma vs Mrs Savita Ravindra Sharma & Ors on 23 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
CR.WP/34/2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 34 OF 2005
Ravindra @ Rupesh Jankilal Sharma,
Age 32 years, Occ. Advocate,
R/o Prithampur, AL 275 Housing
Board, Prithampur, Taluka and
District Dhar (MP). ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Savita Ravindra @ Rupesh Sharma
Age 30 years, Occ. Household
R/o C/o Shri Ratanlal Bhuralal,
Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon.
2. Karmesh Ravindra Sharma
age about 3 years, Occ. Education,
As minor, through Guardian mother
Petitioner No.1. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri L.V.Sangit
Advocate for Respondents : Shri H.P.Deshmukh h/f Shri P.B.Patil
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: June 23, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
30.10.2004, by which, the revisional Court granted maintenance at the rate
of Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.1000/- per month to both the respondents,
respectively.
2. This Court by its order dated 12.4.2005 had directed the petitioner to
continue to pay a total maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2000/-
regularly. By the subsequent order dated 16.4.2007, the petitioner was
CR.WP/34/2005
directed to continue to pay the said maintenance as well as pay the arrears
of maintenance.
3. Shri Sangeet, learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously
criticized the impugned judgment. He submits that the revisional Court,
before causing any interference, should have considered the evidence on
record and as to whether such evidence would support its conclusions. He,
therefore, draws my attention to the conclusions arrived at by the learned
Magistrate in the judgment dated 29.8.2012, by which, respondent No.1 /
wife was refused maintenance and respondent No.2 was granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/-.
4. He further submits that though the proceedings before the learned
Magistrate were ex-parte, it was noted that the wife could not establish
that the petitioner had deserted her. In fact, the trial Court has come to a
conclusion that the evidence with regard to refusal to maintain and neglect
was not proved by the wife. The reason that compelled her to leave the
marital home was also not established and hence the Magistrate refused
maintenance to the wife. Shri Sangeet, therefore, submits that the
revisional Court could not have interfered with these findings of facts,
unless they were totally contrary to the evidence on record.
5. He further submits that the reason why the revisional Court has
granted maintenance to the wife as well, is evident from its conclusions in
paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment. The revisional Court noted that
CR.WP/34/2005
the petitioner had filed a petition for divorce and succeeded in getting an
ex-parte decree. The respondent / wife approached this Court and by the
judgment of this Court, the ex-parte decree of divorce was set aside and
the matter was once again remanded to the trial Court. This aspect has
been wrongly construed by the revisional Court as being indicative of the
fact that the petitioner did not desire to continue his marital life with the
respondent and would therefore, establish that he had deserted her.
6.
Shri Sangeet, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned
judgment and has prayed for the dismissal of the petition. It is stated that
the petitioner wanted to divorce the respondent and, therefore, after ill-
treating her and compelling her to leave her marital home, he had moved
the appropriate Court and had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree which
was set aside by this Court.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
9. It is not in dispute that after the respondent / wife left her marital
home, the petitioner had moved the appropriate Court for seeking a
divorce. He succeeded in the first round of litigation, when the
proceedings were ex-parte. This Court, however, set aside the said
judgment and remanded the case for a fresh trial. Both the parties are
CR.WP/34/2005
unable to state as to what were the developments in the proceedings
thereafter. However, the order of this Court dated 16.4.2007 indicates that
the petitioner was directed to continue to pay the maintenance as well as
clear off all the arrears of maintenance.
10. I have considered the impugned judgment in the light of the
submissions of the learned Advocates. I do not find that the revisional Court
has committed any error in concluding that the institution of the divorce
proceedings by the petitioner is indicative of the fact that he did not desire
to continue his marital life with the respondent. Merely because a second
view could be possibly taken, in the light of the submissions of Shri Sangeet,
would not justify interference in the impugned judgment in the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in the cases of Shalini Sham Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar
Patil [2010 (8) SCC 329] and Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC
523].
11. This petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
