B V GOPALAKRISHNA RAO Vs. P SUSHEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was the respondent in Cr1. MIs. No. 47 of 1982 on the file of AddI. J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi. That was a case instituted by the respondent herein for grant of maintenance to her and her son under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate held that she was entitled to claim separate maintenance and directed the petitioner herein to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/-, with effect from January, 1989. This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner herein in Criminal Revision Petition No. 28 of 1990 and by the party in whose favour the order of maintenance was passed in Cr1. Rev. Petition No. 166/1989. Both these revision petitions came to be disposed of by the AddI. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, by a common order dated 1.2.1992. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed Cr1. Rev. Petition No. 28 of 1990 and allowed in part the other (Cr1. R.P. No. 166/1989) revision petition and directed that the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month awarded should be paid with effect from 6.9.1982. It is being aggrieved by these orders of the Courts below, that the petitioner herein has filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court to quash the orders of the two Courts below.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall here after be referred to by virtue of the ranks they had occupied before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner sought for grant of separate maintenance on the following grounds: She was married to the respondent on 8.7.1975, the marriage having been solemnized as per Hindu Customs. At that time the respondent falsely represented to her that he had not married anyone and after her marriage to the respondent she came to know that respondent had illicit connection with one Sulochana daughter of Ganapathy Rao, a nurse working in Meghan Hospital, Shimoga and that he had entered into a registered marriageT with her at Davanagare. Despite the fact that he continued his association with Sulochana, she somehow managed to live with him, but he ill-treated her and forcibly sent her to her parents house on 22.4.1976 and later he never heeded to her request to take her back and at that time she was pregnant and later she gave birth to a male child on 10.11.1976 and the child was named Anil. The respondent filed a false matrimonial case in M.C. No. 11 of 1977 on the file of Civil Judge, Shimoga and later it came to be dismissed for default on 18.4.1980. The petitioner pleads that she is unable to maintain herself and respondent has sufficient means and therefore he should be directed to pay her minimum maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month towards her maintenance and that of her son.

(3.) The respondent admitted that he did marry the petitioner, but he stated that the marriage was not on 8.7.1975 as alleged in the petition, but it was on 6.7. 1975. That petitioner came to know after marriage that he was having illicit connection with Sulochana has been denied by him. That he entered into registered marriage with the said Sulochana was also denied by him. The illtreatment alleged by the petitioner was also denied. The fact that petitioner was unable to maintain herself was not disputed. That he has sufficient means has also not been disputed. Therefore, he pleaded that petitioner was not entitled to claim separate maintenance from him.