G.G.LONEY, J. - (1.) APPLICANT Radhabai, a deserted woman of about 50 years age, has approached this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section, 482, Cri.P.C. claiming maintenance. Her application for maintenance from her husband non -applicant under section 125 Cri.P.C. was rejected by the learned Magistrate and her revision before the Sessions Court, Akola, was also rejected. It is a very unusual case where an old wife is claiming the maintenance against her husband who is having the first wife living with him. In order to appreciate the rival contentions in this case it is necessary to know the relevant facts.
(2.) THE applicant Radhabai was the second wife of the non -applicant Govinda. He had earlier married with Gangubai but since she was a minor he married the petitioner Radhabai. During the cohabitation of the applicant and non -applicant she gave birth to a daughter. After some years the first wife Gangubai attained puberty and came to reside with the non -applicant. It is the case of the applicant that when the first wife Gangubai came to reside with the non -applicant Govinda a real conflict ensued. According to her the non -applicant Govinda as well as his first wife Gangubai treated her with cruelty. Thereafter the applicant was reached by the non -applicant to her parents place at village Gaondhala in the District Akola. According to the applicant this happened after spending ten years of married life with the non -applicant. It is her case that since the time when she was reached to her parents place at Gaondhala, she requested the non -applicant to pay her maintenance but she was not paid any maintenance and she continued to live with her parents house at Gaondhala. The non -applicant Govinda did not care for the maintenance of Radhabai and continued to live with his first wife Gangubai. It seems that Radhabai made some efforts to get maintenance but to no effect. During the neglect of a long period Radhabai attained the age of about 50 years and Govinda about 55 years when on 28th March, 1984, she filed an application claiming maintenance from the non -applicant under section 125 Cri.P.C.
(3.) THE applicant contended in her application that after attaining puberty Gangubai came to live with the non -applicant No. 1 Govinda and thereafter he started ill -treating her without any reason. She alleged that merciless beating was given to her by Govinda on several occasions. She also alleged ill -treatment at the hands of first wife Gangubai. She further averred that one day she was beaten mercilessly by the non -applicant No. 1 Govinda and was driven out of the house. Since then, she is living with her brother at village Gaondhala. But the non -applicant Govinda did not try to bring back Radhabai nor cared to provide her any maintenance although he had sufficient means to do so. She claims that due to her old age, she is unable to do any manual work and is physically incapable to earn and maintain herself. She has claimed that she does not possess any means for her maintenance. According to her the non -applicant Govinda is having sufficient landed property for providing maintenance and claimed Rs. 400/ - per month towards her maintenance. The non -applicant Govinda denied all the contentions raised by the applicant except that she is his wife. In the trial Court, the applicant examined herself and also examined one witness on her behalf. The non -applicant No. 1 Govinda examined himself and also examined one witness on his behalf. On the basis of the evidence the learned Magistrate held that the applicant is a legally wedded wife of Govinda and further held that their marriage was performed prior to 1956. He further held that Govinda is having sufficient means. He also held that Rs. 100/ - per month will be enough as maintenance allowance to meet the requirements of the applicants. However, he negatived the claim of the applicant on the ground that she has not proved the neglect. According to the learned Magistrate the allegations are vague and the evidence is oath against oath. He also held that a long period has elapsed after both -fell out and therefore the neglect on the part of the husband is not established. In a revision preferred by Radhabai the learned Sessions Judge agreed with all the findings of the trial Court and rejected the revision. It is significant to note that a point was raised before the revisional Court by Radhabai on her behalf in view of the meaning of Explanation added to sub -section (3) of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Explanation provides : "If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him". In view of the circumstances contained in the aforesaid Explanation, it was urged before the Court that when Govinda had the first wife living with him, it was the just ground for applicant to refuse to live with Govinda and even then to claim maintenance. It was submitted that the applicant was justified in refusing to reside with Govinda as he was living with the first wife. According to applicant, it was a just ground for her to refuse to live with her husband in view of the provision contained in the aforesaid Explanation. It has been urged, therefore, that there was just ground for the applicant to refuse to live with her husband and yet claim maintenance. But the learned Sessions Judge did not consider this aspect to grant maintenance to the applicant. According to the Sessions Judge, the refusal on the part of applicant to live with her husband is a circumstances which does not establish neglect on the part of the husband and reject the revision of the applicant.;