Bombay High Court
Ashok Dhondiba Halnor vs Rekha Ashok Halnor And Anr on 7 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:17392 1 1014-Cri.WP.303-08, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.303 OF 2008
Ashok Dhondiba Halnor,
Age : 29 Years, Occu. Labour,
R/o 10, Mohari Post, Kharda,
Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Rekha Ashok Halnor,
Age : 25 Years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Naogaon, Rajuri,
Tq. & District Beed.
2. Ashwini @ Sarika Ashok Halnor,
Age : 5 Years,
U/G of respondent No.1. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Dagadkhair.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 07.08.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has impugned the order of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed passed in Misc. Criminal
Application No.131 of 2006, dated 04.12.2007 and the order
of the learned Sessions Court, Beed passed in Criminal
Revision No.7 of 2008, dated 14.03.2008.
2 1014-Cri.WP.303-08, oral jud.odt
3. The petitioner had a defence that the respondent was
not his legally wedded wife and her child is also not legitimate.
He also contended that he has a small piece of land having no
sufficient income to provide separate maintenance. The
learned Trial Court did not consider the circumstances. The
burden was on the wife to prove that she was legally wedded
wife. Both Courts did not consider the income source and
granted heavy maintenance.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the wife must be legally married for entitling the maintenance
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The evidence produced before
the Court was not sufficient to inspire the confidence that the
marriage was performed. There was no reason to perform the
marriage secretly. The witnesses were not deposing or
explaining any reason why the marriage was performed
secretly.
5. Perused the findings on this point. Respondent No.2 has
categorically deposed that she married the petitioner four years
back as per their rights and rituals. Out of their wed lock, they
were blessed with a baby girl. She also stated place of their
marriage and the rituals performed by the clergyman. One
witness was examined to corroborate her version. The
3 1014-Cri.WP.303-08, oral jud.odt
marriage cards were also printed. She led the prima facie
evidence to believe that there was a marital tie with the
applicant. As against this, when the onus shifted, the applicant
did not produce a satisfactory evidence in rebuttal to believe
that respondent No.1 was not legally wedded wife and the
child is not legitimate.
6. As far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, the
Court had discussed in detail. It has been observed that the
burden was on the applicant to prove his exact income, but he
did not produce. So evaluating the evidence, the Court neither
believed the wife nor the husband and held that the petitioner
was getting the income not less than Rs.1,50,000/- per annum.
It was also observed that the petitioner was able to pay the
separate maintenance and he has sufficient income source.
Considering the living price of the then days, the Court granted
Rs.1500/- to wife and Rs.1000/- to the child. The reasons does
not show, it has been exaggerated and not properly
appreciated. Similarly, the learned Sessions Judge has also
considered the material.
7. Considering the material before the Court, the Court is
of the view that neither the Trial Court nor the revisional Court
erred in quantifying the maintenance and believing that the
4 1014-Cri.WP.303-08, oral jud.odt
marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was
existing. The writ petition devoid of merits. Hence, stands
dismissed.
8. Rule stands discharged.
9. No order as to costs.
10. R and P be returned to the Trial Court.
11. It is made clear that the right of the petitioner to file the
declaratory suit about their relationship has not been taken
away by this order.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
