Sou. Shweta W/O Mangesh Katole vs Mangesh Vasudeorao Katole
2017 Latest Caselaw 5204 Bom

                                                    1                      revn150.16.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                     CRIMINAL REVISION NO.150/2016

      Sou. Shweta w/o Mangesh Katole,
      Alias Shweta d/o Ram Somnathe, 
      aged 27 years, Occ. Nil, 
      r/o c/o Mr. Ram Somnathe, 
      59, Sant Keshar Mata Nagar, 
      Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440 009.                       .....APPLICANT
                        ...V E R S U S...

      Mangesh Vasudeorao Katole, 
      aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, 
      R/o Parth Jwellars, Anand Plaza
      Building, Near Orange City Society,
      In front of Rajapeth Bus Stop,
      Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440034                          ...NON APPLICANT
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. B. M. Kharkate, Advocate for applicant. 
 Mr. S. P. Pawar, Advocate for non applicant. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 28.07.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the parties.

2. The present revision is directed against the judgment

and order passed by the learned Judge Family Court No.2 in

Petition E-532/2013 by which the learned Judge has dismissed the

petition filed on behalf of the revision applicant under Section 125

of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance.

2 revn150.16.odt

3. I have heard Mr. Kharkhate, learned counsel for the

applicant and Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the non applicant.

4. Though initially an application for maintenance was

filed by the applicant along with her minor son Parth, his name

was deleted from the array of the applicants before the Family

Court. It is also submitted by both the learned counsel for the

applicants before this Court that Parth is residing with the non

applicant Mangesh and he is taking his care.

5. The marriage between the applicant and non applicant

was solemnized as per the Special Marriage Act on 24.07.2007

and it was a love marriage. According to the applicant, though she

was treated nicely for few months by the family members of the

non applicant, they changed their attitude and started insulting

her so that she should leave the company. It is further the case of

the applicant that for 5 years, the couple resided in a joint family.

However, the other family members of the non applicant started

residing separately from him due to his behaviour. It is also stated

in the application that the non applicant was habituated to drinks

and she was mercilessly beaten. Therefore she lodged a complaint

3 revn150.16.odt

with Police Station. However, the cognizance was not taken by

the police and therefore she took shelter of her parents.

6. On being noticed, the non applicant filed his reply

under Exh.-16 and denied all adverse allegations against him. It

was pointed out that he was always ready and willing to cohabit

with the applicant. Even before this Court, a statement was made

by the non applicant that he is ready for cohabitation. However,

counsel for the applicant could not respond to the said submission.

During the course of hearing, it is also revealed that the

non applicant is taking due care of the child. It is also revealed

that the applicant-wife has filed a petition for divorce.

7. The learned Judge of the Family Court formulated a

point as to whether the applicant has proved that she has been

neglected or refused to maintain by the non applicant. On

appreciation of the evidence, the learned Judge has found that the

wife has failed to prove that she was neglected by the non

applicant. The evidence shows that the non applicant has

produced on record various receipts which show that two wheeler

was purchased by the non applicant in the name of the applicant.

4 revn150.16.odt

It is also brought on record that the non applicant has taken care

of the ailments which the applicant was suffering.

8. In my view, the court below on appreciation of the

evidence as brought on record found that it was obligatory on the

part of the wife to prove that she was neglected by the non

applicant and she has failed to prove the same. Therefore, no case

is made out to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the

court below. Hence the revision is dismissed.

Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

kahale