DHANKORBAI VILAS PATIL Vs. VILAS MOHAN PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition arises from the judgment and order dated 8-4-1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Amalner allowing the revision application filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order dated 9-7-1991 of the trial Court directing the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner. By the impugned order, the revisional Court has set aside the order of the trial Court granting maintenance in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent No. 1 had neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the respondent No. 1. After residing in her matrimonial house for about1 and 1. 1/2 months she proceeded to reside with her parents on the ground that she was being ill-treated by the respondent No. 1 and his family members. THE respondent No. 1 is employed with Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and apart from his salary on account of his employment he has also agricultural income from the property. On the allegation of neglect of the petitioner, an application for grant of maintenance was filed by the petitioner being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 1981. THE same was dismissed as there was no averment in the application that she was unable to maintain herself. THE revision application against the said order of the trial Court was also dismissed. THEreafter, as the petitioner continued to reside with her parents, some time in June 1989 there were some efforts for amicable settlement between the parties and in that connection written undertaking was executed on stamp paper by the respondent No. 1 assuring her good treatment if she was to come and stay with the respondent No. 1. THE petitioner having thereafter proceeded to stay with the respondent No. 1 did not get good treatment and she had to leave the house of the respondent No. 1 within 1 or 2 days. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that she left the house of the respondent No. 1 on her own and without any justification. THEreafter, the present proceedings were initiated by the petitioner being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 293 of 1989 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner. THE claim of the petitioner was that the respondent No. 1 has illegally refused to maintain the petitioner and that he is staying with another lady and even he has 3 issues out of his illegal relations with the said lady. She, therefore, demanded maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. THE application was opposed on various grounds and the reply was further amended making allegation that the petitioner was having illicit relations with stranger and consequently she was pregnant and had to undergo abortion on 24th April 1983. All these allegations were made in the reply to the petition for maintenance. THE trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that there was a clear case of cruelty by the respondent No. 1 on account of unjustifiable allegations doubting the character of the petitioner and there being no proof adduced in support of the said allegation and on that count itself the petitioner was entitled to stay separately and claim maintenance. THE revisional Court, however, holding that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent No. 1 had neglected or refused to maintain her, set aside the order of grant of maintenance by the impugned order.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned judgment and justifying the grant of maintenance on the ground of false allegations, the learned advocate for the petitioner has sought reliance on the decisions of the various High Courts, namely, Kandaswami Moopan v. Angammal reported in AIR (47) 1960 Madras 348; Anupama Pradhan v. Sultan Pradhan reported in 1991 Cri. L. J. 3216; Baishnab Charan Jena v. Ritarani Jena reported in 1993 Cri. L. J. 238; Udaivir Singh v. Smt. Vinod Kumari reported in 3 Maintenance Cases 600; Smt. Shakuntla v. Rattan Lal reported in 1 Maintenance Cases 132 and Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Smt. Shila Rani Chander Parkash reported in AIR (55) 1968 Delhi 174. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand has submitted that there was no justification for the trial Court to grant any maintenance on the ground of failure on the part of the respondent No. 1 to prove the allegation in the written statement in view of the fact that in spite of the said allegation in the written statement in view of the fact that in spite of the said allegation the petitioner had not claimed any maintenance on the said ground and that though she had ample opportunity to justify her staying away from the respondent No. 1 on the ground of alleged cruelty. Consequent to the allegation in the Written Statement, there was no effort made by the petitioner in that regard in spite of the fact that she entered the witness box much after filing of the written statement. According to the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, therefore, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned judgment.