Dilip Marotrao Sonkamble vs Indubai Dilip Sonkamble & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5498 Bom

                                                                        cran3241.05
                                         -1-




                                                                         
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3241 OF 2005




                                                
     Dilip s/o Marotrao Sonkamble
     Age 40 years, Occ. Service
     (Railway Employee),
     R/o. Siddharth Nagar, Purna,
     Tq. Purna, District Parbhani                         ...Petitioner




                                       
              versus         
     1.       Sow. Indubai w/o Dilip Sonkamble
              Age 35 years, Occ. Household
              R/o. Siddharth Nagar, Purna
                            
              Tq. Purna, District Parbhani
              At present Nila, Tq. Purna
              District Parbhani

     2.       Maya d/o Dilip Somkamble,
      


              Age 19 years, Occ. Education
              R/o. Siddharth Nagar, Purna
   



              Tq. Purna, District Parbhani

     3.       Rahul s/o Dilip Sonkamble
              Age 17 years, Occ. Education





              minor u/g of mother Indubai
              w/o Dilip Somkamble
              R/o. As above

     4.       Ravi s/o Dilip Sonkamble
              Age 16 years, Occ. Education





              minor u/g of mother Indubai
              w/o Dilip Somkamble
              R/o. As above

     5.       Kum. Sunita d/o Dilip Sonkamble
              Age 12 years, Occ. Education,
              minor u/g of mother Indubai
              w/o Dilip Somkamble
              R/o. As above                               ...Respondents




    ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016                 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:17:29 :::
                                                                             cran3241.05
                                          -2-

                                          ...




                                                                             
      Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sachin S. Bhise h/f Mr. S B Bhapkar and Mr.
                                   D.B. Rakhunde
                Advocate for Respondents 1, 3 to 5: Mr. S.S. Bora,




                                                     
                                         .....

                                                CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2016

JUDGMENT:-

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.7.2005

passed by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in

criminal revision No. 141 of 2004 the original opponents have filed

present criminal application.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as

follows:-

a) The respondent wife had filed an application bearing Cri. M.A.

No. 80 of 2003 for grant of maintenance to her and her children at

the rate of Rs.1500/- p.m. It is stated in the said application that she

married with the present applicant 25 years back. However, two

years prior to filing of proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the

applicant husband has started giving ill treatment to the wife on

account of non fulfillment of unlawful demand of Rs.25,000/- for

purchase of car. The wife has expressed her inability to fetch the

amount from her father because of his poor financial condition.

cran3241.05

Thus, she was subjected to ill treatment and beating on that count.

The respondent wife and her father tried their level best to find out

the solution and even one document also came to be executed in

terms of certain settlement. However, the applicant husband again

continued with the said demand and subjected her to cruelty on

account of non fulfillment of the said demand. He refused to

maintain all the respondents inspite of having sufficient means. The

petitioner husband is working as gang man in Railway department on

monthly salary. The respondents original applicants accordingly

prayed for maintenance of Rs.1500/- each p.m.

b) The petitioner husband strongly resisted the application by

filing his say at Exh.11. It has contended that the father of the

petitioner husband was serving in the Railway department and after

his retirement he got retirement benefits. The respondent wife was

insisting to invest some amount in the name of her children for which

the petitioner husband was not ready. On the count of said quarrel,

respondent wife started residing separately. Even she had also filed

false case against him. It has also stated that the respondent wife

alongwith her children in fact driven the husband out of their house.

It has also stated that he is getting only Rs.2978/- p.m. as salary and

he has to maintain entire family. According to the petitioner husband

the respondent wife has no just cause to reside separately and claim

cran3241.05

maintenance.

c) Learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dismissed the

application of the original petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that the

petitioner No.3 is major and petitioner No.2 got married and that

husband did not neglect and refuse to maintain the wife. Being

aggrieved by the same, the wife had preferred criminal revision

bearing No. 141 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Parbhani and

the learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on

26.7.2005 allowed the said revision and granted maintenance to the

respondent wife at the rate of Rs.600/- p.m. and further granted

maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. each to original petitioner

Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant husband submits that the

respondent wife has no just cause to reside separately and claim

maintenance. It is submitted that father of the petitioner husband got

retiral benefits and respondent wife started insisting to invest certain

amount in the names of her children. In fact, she had driven the

petitioner husband out of the house. Learned counsel submits that

learned Sessions Judge has not correctly appreciated the evidence

on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during

pendency of this criminal application respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have

cran3241.05

attained majority and they are not entitled for maintenance. Thus, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the Adhoc Additional

Sessions, Parbhani is thus liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent wife submits that even

though the marriage took place 25 years prior to filing of proceedings

for grant of maintenance, the wife subjected to cruelty and beating at

the hands the petitioner husband on account of non fulfillment of

unlawful demands of Rs.25,000/- for purchase of car. Learned

counsel submits that considering the same, learned Adhoc Additional

Sessions Judge held that wife has just cause to reside separate and

claim maintenance. Furthermore, the petitioner husband though

having fixed salary, refused and neglected to maintain the

respondent wife and children. Learned counsel for the respondent

however, admits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have attained majority

during pendency of present criminal application.

5. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani after

going through the evidence led by the parties minutely observed that

even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the respondent

wife wanted her father-in-law to deposit the amount in the name of

children, the said request could not have been said to be excessive.

Furthermore, the respondent wife has deposed before the court

cran3241.05

about ill treatment being extended to her on account of non

fulfillment of unlawful demands made by the petitioner husband.

Even she has deposed that the petitioner husband executed a bond

and assured before Mahila Takrar Nivaran Kendra to maintain

respondent wife well and not to harass her in future. In view of this, I

find that the respondent wife has just and sufficient cause to live

separate and claim maintenance. The petitioner husband is having

sufficient means to pay her separate maintenance. So far as the

maintenance granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who now attained

majority, the petitioner husband may file an application under section

127 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for cancellation of order of

maintenance in their favour.

6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in

the writ petition. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the

same is accordingly dismissed. Rue discharged. No costs.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/