BHAURAO BABURAO SALVE Vs. MALAN BHAURAO SALVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) BY the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of grant of maintenance in favour of the respondent no. 1 passed by the J. M. F. C. , Karjat in criminal Misc. application No. 6/83 by its order dated 30th April, 1985 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal revision Application No. 182/85 by its judgment and order dated 3. 8. 1989. The challenge is two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the respondent having failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the courts below could not have granted maintenance in her favour under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secodnly, it is contended that both the Courts below, without considering the income of the petitioner have fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the respondent.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent no. 1 herein by her application under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month on the ground that the petitioner has married second time with one Venubai and since then, the respondent no. 1 was being ill-treated and therefore, the respondent was forced to stay separately from the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent is not legally wedded wife of the petiitoner and secondly, that the petitioner having legally married with Venubai in the year, 1958, no application for maintanence under section 125 of Cr. P. C. is maintainable at the instance of the respondent. The trial Court , on analysis of the evidence, found that the respondent had established the fact that she was married to the petitioner about 35 years prior to the date of her depostiion in the Court whereas the second marriage of the petitioner with Venubai had taken place in the year, 1958. The trial Court also has arrived at the finding that the fact that the respondent had been residing with the petitioenr as well as with the second wife Venubai in the same house has never been disputed by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that he was married with Venubai prior to his marriage with the respondent has been disbelieved in the absence of any evidence in that regard as agianst the evidence produced by the respondent about her marriage prior to the marriage of the petitioner with said Venubai. The revisional Court has confirmed the said findings of the trial Court. Thus, there are concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner and the respondent had stayed together for a considerable time as husband and wife. The analysis of the evidence on record and the findings arrived at by the Courts below further disclose that since there was no issue born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner contracted second marriage with Venubai and thereafter, started ill-treating the respondent which compelled her to stay-separately from the petitioner. All these findings have been arrived at on analysis of the evidence on record and are concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below.