BHASKARRAO UTTAMRAO PATIL (CHOPDE) Vs. SAU SUMANBAI ALIAS KOKILABAI BHASKARRAO PATIL (CHO
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bhaskarrao Uttamrao Patil (Chopde)
Sau Sumanbai Alias Kokilabai Bhaskarrao Patil (Cho
Click here to view full judgement.
R. K. Deshpande, J. -
(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the judgment order dated 7-2-2009 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2006, setting aside the judgment and order dated 28-12-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkapur, District Buldana, in Misc. Criminal Case No.72 of 2004, rejecting the application for grant of maintenance. The petitioner claims setting aside of the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court and restoration of the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.
(2.) The petitioner and the respondent got married on 16-2-1975. By way of consent terms reduced in writing on 24-8-1979, the parties decided to live separately and the respondent-wife agreed not to claim any maintenance. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 17-5-2004, i.e. after a lapse of 25 years, by the respondent-wife to the petitioner-husband calling upon him to pay the monthly maintenance, which was rejected by the Trial Court and allowed by the Revisional Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- per month.
(3.) The only question involved in the present case is whether the respondent-wife is disentitled to claim maintenance in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner relied upon the consent terms dated 24-8-1979 at Exhibit 39, and this was disputed by the respondent-wife. The Trial Court holds that the consent terms are proved, whereas the Revisional Court holds that the consent terms become unenforceable in view of Section 5(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.