DILIP MAROTRAO SONKAMBLE Vs. INDUBAI DILIP SONKAMBLE
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Dilip Marotrao Sonkamble
Indubai Dilip Sonkamble
Click here to view full judgement.
(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 fulfilment 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. 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 fulfilment of the said demand. He refused to maintain all the respondents in spite 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 along with 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 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 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.