JASHODA SHAMBHUSING SEKHAVAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21/12/1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4th Court, Ahmedabad Rural in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 1991 rejecting the application of the petitioner made under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from the date of the application from the respondent No. 2.

(2.) In her application for maintenance made on 3/06/1991, the applicant stated that she and the respondent No. 2 were in love for over two years. Thereafter the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 married as per Hindu rites in January, 1991. It was stated that as the father of the respondent No. 2 - husband wanted a fat dowry the petitioner who had stayed with her husband-respondent No. 2 for about three months, was driven out. The respondent No. 2 was planning to get married with another girl from Sirohi. The petitioner made efforts to see that the respondent No. 2 allowed her to stay with him, but she was told that Rs. 2 lakhs should be given in dowry if she wanted to come back to him. It was contended that respondent No. 2 was serving as a diesel engine driver at Porbandar and was earning about Rs. 4,000 per month and had no other liabilities. An application was made by the petitioner on the same day for interim maintenance which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4th Court, Ahmedabad Rural, on 6-12-1991. The respondent No. 2 in his reply at Exh. 18 denied having married the petitioner and contended that there was only Platonic love between them and there was no talk of any marriage and the entire episode about their marriage as stated by the petitioner was concocted. It was contended that the petitioner had never stayed with him for a period of 3 months as alleged and they had not lived as husband and wife. It was contended that he was earning only Rs. 2,OO0 per month and not Rs. 4,000 as alleged.

(3.) The petitioner in her deposition Exh. 28 stated that she and the respondent No. 2 were married in a temple in January 1991 and that the marriage was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar. A certified copy of the registration of marriage was produced at Exh. 30 under the list Exh. 8 which was filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Photographs of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were also produced at Exhs. 32 to 35. According to the petitioner, these photographs were taken because the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were married, while according to the respondent No. 2, they were taken only because the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were friends. The petitioner's case was that, one Purshottam Gaurishankar Joshi had got them married. The respondent No. 2 on the other hand denied his signature on the marriage registration form, the original of which was got produced in the Court and a xerox copy of which appears at Exh. 52.