Bombay High Court
Rafika Begum Abdul Rauf And Ors vs Abdul Rauf Abdul Hamid on 15 November, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 CRI WP 119.2007.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 119 OF 2007
NARENDRA DHARMRAJ DHOLE
age 35 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri,
District Dhule. Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its Government Pleader,
High Court of Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad.
2. Sau Karunabai Narendra Dhole,
age 28 yrs, Occ. Tailoring Job.
3. Rahul Narendra Dhole,
age 8 yrs, Occ. Nil.
4. Kapil Narendra Dhole,
age 6 yrs, Occ. Nil.
R/o Plot No.28, Shantikunj Nivas,
Annapurna Bhojnalaya,
Chakradhar Colony, Shirpur,
District Dhule. Respondents.
...
Mr P R Dhale, Advocate for petitioner absent.
APP for Respondent : Mr S P Tiwari
Advocate for Respondent 2-4 : Mr Mukul Kulkarni
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: November 15, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. None present for the petitioner.
2 CRI WP 119.2007.odt
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
25.6.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Shirpur in Cri M.A.90/2002 and confirmed
by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule with certain
modifications in respect of the quantum of maintenance
by judgment and order dated 6.12.2003 in criminal
revision no.125/2003, the original non applicant-
husband preferred this criminal writ petition.
3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition
are as follows :-
a] Respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of
petitioner and respondent no.3 and 4 born to them out
of their marital wedlock. After marriage respondent
no.2 wife was treated well for initial period of one year
and after birth of respondent no.3, subjected to ill-
treatment by the petitioner-husband. She was subjected
to ill-treatment by the petitioner-husband by suspecting
about her character. So also he was demanding money
for purchasing colour TV etc., and subjecting her to
abuses and beating for non-fulfillment of the same.
Even after birth of respondent no.4, there was no
3 CRI WP 119.2007.odt
change in the behaviour of petitioner-husband. In the
month of march, 2001 petitioner husband drove her out
of the house after subjecting respondent no.2 wife a
severe beating. Due to intervention of the family
members petitioner-husband taken respondent no.2 wife
for further cohabitation, however, again drove her out
from his house alongwith children. Respondent no.2
wife and children were unable to maintain themselves
and respondent no.2 wife was not having independent
source of income. Thus, respondent no.2 wife alongwith
children constrained to file Cri. M.A. No.90/2002 for
maintenance @ Rs.1500/- p.m. for herself and
Rs.1,500/- each to children. It has stated in the
application that petitioner husband has refused and
neglected to maintain them though having sufficient
means. Petitioner husband is serving as a peon in one
college on monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and his father is
also serving as a clerk in Grampanchayat. It is also
stated in the application that, petitioner husband is
having 5 acres of irrigated land and milking cow and
she-buffallows.
4 CRI WP 119.2007.odt
b]. Petitioner-husband has strongly resisted said
application by filing his say. He has admitted relations,
however, contended that respondent no.2 wife was
reluctant to cohabit with him and she had an attraction
towards her parents. Respondent wife was residing on
her own with her parents therefore, she is not entitled to
claim separate maintenance. It has also contended that
petitioner husband is getting Rs.700/- net salary p.m.
and he has to maintain his old parents. Thus, it is not
possible for him to pay separate maintenance as
claimed.
c]. Both parties have adduced their oral evidence in
support of their rival contentions. Learned Magistrate
by impugned order dated 25.6.2003 directed the
petitioner husband to pay maintenance allowance @
Rs.300/- p.m. to the respondent-wife and Rs.200/- p.m.
each to respondents no.3 and 4 from the date of
application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
husband has preferred criminal revision no.125/2003
and respondent wife alongwith children also preferred
criminal revision no.132/2002 with regard to quantum.
5 CRI WP 119.2007.odt
The learned 4th additional Sessions Judge, Dhule by its
impugned order dated 6.12.2003 dismissed criminal
revision preferred by the petitioner-husband, however,
partly allowed the criminal revision preferred by the
respondent-wife and thereby modified the order passed
by the trial court and accordingly directed the petitioner
husband to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/-
p.m. to each of the respondents/original applicants
from the date of application. Hence, this writ petition.
4. On careful perusal of the judgment and order
passed by the learned Magistrate, it appears that, on
the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the
learned Magistrate has recorded finding that petitioner
husband had refused and neglected to maintain
respondent-wife and her children inspite of sufficient
means with him. Learned Magistrate has observed that
respondent-wife had just cause to live separate and
demand maintenance and she is unable to maintain
herself and her children. Learned Magistrate has
negatived the contention raised by the petitioner-
husband that respondent-wife is residing with her
6 CRI WP 119.2007.odt
parents without any just cause. On the other hand,
learned Magistrate has observed that petitioner-
husband has not made any attempts to bring back the
respondent-wife for cohabitation. Learned Magistrate
has also considered the salaried income of the petitioner
husband.
5. On careful perusal of the judgment and order
passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Dhule, it appears that, the learned additional Sessions
Judge has confirmed the finding recorded by the
learned Magistrate. After considering the evidence on
record, it appears that the petitioner husband is not
getting less than Rs.3145/- p.m. by way of salary.
Furthermore, in addition to this, he has agricultural
land by way of his additional source of income. Thus,
considering the needs of the growing children and
standard of living, the learned Additional sessions
Judge has rightly modified the order by directing the
petitioner-husband to pay maintenance allowance @
Rs.500/- p.m. to each of respondents.
7 CRI WP 119.2007.odt
6. So far as finding of refusal and neglect to maintain
respondent-wife and children by the petitioner-husband
is concerned, both the courts have recorded concurrent
finding. Furthermore, considering the standard of
living of the family and salaried income and other
income of the petitioner-husband, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has correctly modified the
quantum of the maintenance. I do not find any reason
to interfere in the order passed by the courts below.
There is no substance in the writ petition. Hence,
following order.
O R D E R
I. Criminal Writ Petition is hereby
dismissed. Rule discharged.
sd/-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
