ISAK CHANDA PALKAR Vs. NYAMATBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an admitted position that respondent Nyamatbi was married to the petitioner on 4th September 1953. It is also an admitted position that thereafter the petitioner remarried and had a second wife. It appears from the record that the respondent-wife was living with her parents and the petitioner was paying Rs. 30/- per month to her towards wards maintenance. After coming into force of the new Cr.P.C. in 1974 the respondent filed an application under section 125 of the Code on or about 16th of April 1974. As soon as this application was filed, the petitioner husband pronounced divorce on 14th June 1974 and also offered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards agreed Mehr and Rs. 150/- as maintenance for Iddat period of three months. This amount was sent by the money order. The said money order was refused by the respondent wife some time on 17th of July 1974. Thereafter the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 2,650/- in the Court on 13th August, 1974.

(2.) In the application filed by the wife it was contended by her that the petitioner husband is carrying on business of scrap and was a rich person. He had constructed a building by spending one lac of rupees and he gets Rs. 2000/- per months as rent from the tenants. She further stated that the husband had three other buildings in Satara City and he gets rent from the tenants of these buildings also and that he also carries on business of truck by which he is getting an income of Rs. 2000/- per month. Thus according to the wife total income of her husband was about Rupees 7000/- per month. In the application itself she stated that she had no means of maintenance and she is solely depending upon her brother for her maintenance. She requires about Rs. 150/- for meeting two ends and Rs. 50/- per month for her clothes. Thus, in substance she claimed Rs. 200/- per month towards her maintenance. The husband contested the said application on various grounds. According to him the relations between him and the wife were not cordial and that she never cohabited with him. He also stated that for about last 20 years he has no contact with his wife and he has already divorced her on 14th of June 1974 as per the personal law. He then contended that under law after divorce a wife is not entitled to any maintenance from her husband. He has denied that he is getting Rs. 7000/- per month as income. He then stated that the wife is getting Rs. 100/- per month from her own property. According to him he has also paid her maintenance up to May 1974, and in any case she is not entitled to a maintenance of more than Rs. 30/- per month.

(3.) In support of her case the respondent Nyamatbi examined herself and two witnesses namely Yasin Ahmed and Ranglal. The petitioner Isak Palkar examined himself and witnesses Fazul Huq and Mehabooba in support of his contentions. After appreciating all the evidence on record the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class came to the conclusion that the wife has proved that the husband has refused or neglected to maintain her. He also recorded a finding that the husband has divorced the wife on 14th June 1974. He further recorded a finding that the husband has paid the stipulated Mehr and Iddat amount to the applicant wife as required under the Mahomedan Law. He then came to the conclusion that the wife will be entitled to maintenance only up to 14th September, 1974 i.e. till the expiry of Iddat period and, therefore, ultimately the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, partly allowed the application filed by the wife and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from 16th April, 1974 up to 14th of September, 1974. Being aggrieved by this order both the parties filed revision petitions which were heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara by his order dated 1st of June 1974. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the finding recorded by the trial Court that the wife has proved that the husband neglected or refused to maintain her though he had sufficient means to do so. He also confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is also proved that he had given a divorce on 14th June 1974. He also came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month even after the period of Iddat. In this view of the matter the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by the wife and dismissed the petition filed by the husband. It is this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, which is challenged by the petitioner husband in this criminal application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.