NEELAKSHI RAGHUNATH KUTE Vs. RAGHUNATH MANOHAR KUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -original complainant has filed this appeal and challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Ghodnadi dated 18th May, 1985 in Criminal Case No. 401 of 1983 acquitting the respondents -accused from the offence under Sections 494, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellant -original complainant had also taken out Criminal Misc. Application No. 398 of 1986 supported with an affidavit of the complainant dated 20th March, 1986 praying for withdrawal of the appeal or for dismissing the appeal for non prosecution on the ground that subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the complainant had obtained customary divorce from her husband -respondent No. 1 by executing a regular divorce deed dated 6th January, 1986 registered with the Sub -Registrar and, accordingly, it is further highlighted in her affidavit that even the proceedings initiated between them viz. the proceedings taken out by the respondent No. 1 husband against her being Marriage Petition No. 473 of 1984 filed in Civil Court, Pune and the Criminal Revision Application filed by her husband in Sessions Court at Mumbai being Criminal Revision Application No. 184 of 1985 challenging the order of maintenance was also withdrawn and, accordingly, she is also required to withdraw the proceedings initiated against her husband viz. the present appeal. The said application was ordered to be considered alongwith the appeal and, accordingly, present appeal is notified alongwith the said application filed by the original complainant. In view of the application filed by the appellant -complainant praying for withdrawal of the appeal or praying for dismissal of the appeal for non -prosecution, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -complainant is not interested in proceeding with the appeal and, accordingly, none appeared for the appellant, as well as none appeared for the respondent -accused though Mr. Wechlekar had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and rest of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are duly served.

(3.) AS observed earlier that the appellant -complainant had while taking out the application being Criminal Application No. 398 of 1986 which is supported with her affidavit dated 20th March, 1986 disclosing the fact that during the pendency of the appeal a customary divorce was obtained by the appellant -complainant and the respondent No. 1 her husband by executing a divorce deed dated 6th January, 1986 and the same was also registered with the Sub -Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai and, accordingly, the appellant -complainant had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal or for dismissal of the appeal for non -prosecution.