SHARDA BAI & OTHERS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The application was submitted on 30-10-2002 stating that the petitioner No.1's marriage with the respondent was performed according to the custom and Hindu rituals at village Kutrel about four years prior to the institution of application. They were staying together as husband and wife for the last two years at Polsaipara, Durg and have given birth to daughter Pooja (petitioner No.2). After some days of the birth of the daughter the respondent dragged her out of the house and is living with one Kiran Chandrakar as his concubine. He has stopped paying any maintenance to the petitioners. Since the petitioner No. 1 is not literate, she is having difficulty in maintaining herself and her children whereas the respondent is earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing business of clothes and bread. He has a pakka house at Polsaipara, Durg, some part of which has been rented out, from which he is earning an amount of Rs.3007- per month. After moving the subject application the respondent again started visiting the petitioner No.1 and exerted pressure for withdrawing the application. Taking benefit of the access he started cohabitating with the petitioner No.1, which resulted in birth of the petitioner No.3/Rohit Kumar on 18-9-2003. When this fact came to the notice of the respondent's concubine she raised a quarrel whereupon the respondent again stopped visiting the petitioner No.1 and refused to provide any maintenance. The respondent is now earning Rs-8,000/- per month from business and Rs.2,000/-per month as rental income.

(3.) The respondent contested the application on the submission that he has never resided near Laxmi Mandir. He resides in a house at Polsaipara, Durg, situated on a road behind the house of Afzal Councilor. Petitioner No.1 was residing at Kutrel and was in relationship with different persons at different point of time. He has never married with the petitioner No.1. About 8 years back, the petitioner No.1. was introduced to him by one Neelkanth and thereafter, she came to his house where he was residing with his wife Smt. Kiran and the petitioner No.1 stayed in his house for about 20-25 days. She, thereafter, left the house on her own and went back to village Kutrel and, subsequently, there has been no contact with the petitioner No.1. The respondent denied the parentage of the petitioners No.2 & 3. He has also denied the income of Rs.8,0007- per month from business and Rs.2,000/- per month from rent. He specifically stated that he earns Rs.20-25/-per day by selling bread. He named Panchamram Deshmukh, village Kotwar Rakesh, Hirau Deshmukh, Badnu Sahu, Kallu Deshmukh, as the persons who used to reside with the petitioner No.1 in her house at village Kutrel. He also pleaded that the petitioner No.1 also resides in the house of Kallu Deshmukh and Badnu Sahu for days together at different point of time. The villagers had found the petitioner No.1 and Panchamram Deshmukh in an objectionable position and, thereafter, the petitioner No.1 had lodged an FIR against Panchamram for offence under Sections 450, 506 Part II & 375 of the Indian Penal Code and in course of trial, the petitioner No.1 deposed in favour of Panchamram, therefore, the trial ended in his acquittal.