Bombay High Court
Dilip Uttamrao Tambe vs Manda Dilip Tambe & Ors on 3 August, 2017
Bench: V.L. Achliya
100.06crwp
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2006
Dilip Uttamrao Tambe,
age 25 years, Occu. Agri.
and labourer, resident of
Dongaon (Tambe), Taluka
Paithan, District Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Manda Dilip Tambe,
age 22 years, occu. Household,
resident of at post Poregaon,
Taluka Paithan District
Aurangabad (through Police
Statin, Bidkin), C/o Paraji
Sampatrao Gaikwad, resident
of Poregaon, Taluka Paithan,
District Aurangabad.
2. The State of Maharashtra. ..RESPONDENTS.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Ms.Sneha Rathod h/f S.S.
Chaudhari.
APP for Respondent/State: Mr.S.Y. Mahajan.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : N.T. Tribhuwan.
...
CORAM : V.L. ACHLIYA, J.
3rd AUGUST, 2017.
100.06crwp
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for
respondent No.1 and APP for the State waive notice. By
consent, heard finally.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31 st May, 2005
passed in M.A. No.182 of 2004 by the J.M.F.C., Paithan,
District Aurangabad allowing the application filed by
respondent No.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure granting maintenance @ Rs.1300/- per month, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Revision before the Sessions
Court, Aurangabad. By the judgment and order dated
12.1.2006, passed in Criminal Revision No.96 of 2005, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge pleased to partly allow the
revision petition to the extent of modifying the quantum of
maintenance awarded by the trial Court. The amount of
Rs.1300/- per month awarded by the trial Court was modified
and reduced to Rs.1000/- per month. Aggrieved by the order
passed by the trial Court as well as revisional court, the
petitioner - original non applicant i.e. husband has preferred
this writ petition challenging the said orders.
100.06crwp
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent
and learned APP for the State. Perused the impugned
judgment and orders passed by the Courts below.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the orders
passed by the trial Court with contention that the trial Court
has failed to take into consideration that the applicant has
not proved its case that non-applicant has refused and
neglected to maintain the applicant. It is contended that the
applicant has left the matrimonial house on her own accord
and that too without any justifiable cause within three
months after marriage. The applicant was not willing to
cohabit with the non-applicant in joint family and that too, in
the village. She has left the house on her own accord. It is
further contended that the trial Court as well as revisional
court have failed to take into consideration that the applicant
has failed to prove that the non-applicant has sufficient
means to pay maintenance.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent
No.1 supported the judgment and order passed by the trial
100.06crwp
Court as well as revisional Court. He submits that the
impugned orders are well reasoned and calls for no
interference in writ jurisdiction.
6. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, I have
perused the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as
well as the revisional Court. In my view, the orders passed are
well reasoned and there is absolutely no illegality or
impropriety. The impugned orders are passed on due
consideration of rival contentions and the evidence adduced
in the case. It is not in dispute that few months after the
marriage, the applicant was required to give up her
matrimonial house and stay at her parents' house. It is
difficult to believe that a married woman would leave her
matrimonial house within few months of marriage, without
any justifiable cause and stay with her parents. Although, the
non-applicant has taken a stand that the applicant has left
the house on her own accord and without justifiable cause,
there is no evidence as such brought on record as to the
efforts made by the non-applicant to fetch back the applicant
for cohabitation. In this view, the reasons and findings
recorded by the trial Court that non-applicant neglected and
100.06crwp
refused to maintain the applicant, cannot be said to be
perverse. The revisional Court has examined the evidence in
minute details and confirmed the findings recorded to that
effect by the trial Court. In this view, the reasons and
findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed in revision
that the non-applicant has neglected to maintain applicant
calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. So far as the quantum of the maintenance awarded is
concerned, it has been brought on record that the family of
the non-applicant was owner of about 25 acres of land. Out
of the said land, 60 Ares of land found to be used for taking
sugarcane crop. Therefore, even though it is argued that the
land is not entirely owned by the non-applicant, still it makes
out a case that the non-applicant has sufficient means to pay
the maintenance. It is nowhere the case of non-applicant that
the applicant is having separate income to maintain herself.
In the light of evidence on record, the reasons and findings
recorded by the trial Court as to awarding maintenance, calls
for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. In my view, the petition filed is devoid of merits and
100.06crwp
substance therein. No case is made out to invoke writ
jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned orders. I am,
therefore, inclined to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands
discharged in above terms.
[ V.L. ACHLIYA, J ]
Kadam.
