PRAKASH BHASKARRO PATIL Vs. PREETI PRAKASH PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD S/shri Prakash Naidu, M. B. Naidu and Y. S. Jambulkar, Advocates for the applicant, S/shri Mahesh Singh and Girish purohit, Advocates for non-applicants No. 1 to 3 and Shri Loney, A. P. P. for non-applicant No. 4-State.

(2.) THE applicant-Prakash Bhaskarrao Patil, who has preferred this revision application, is challenging the judgment and order dated 6-1-2000 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, in Petition No. B-324/97 granting maintenance to non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3. The applicant and non-applicant No. 1 were married on 3-4-1993 as per Hindu customs and rites. After marriage they lived together and cohabited and non-applicant No. 2 Master Piyush prakash Patil and non-applicant No. 3 Payal Prakash Patil are the children born to non-applicant No. 1 of the applicant. Applicant and non-applicant no. 1 lived together till October 1995. Non-applicant No. 2 was born on 24-9-1993. Non-applicant No. 3 was born on 16-9-1996. The spouses after living together till October 1995 separated and non-applicant No. 1 along with non-applicant No. 2 went to reside with her mother and applicant and non-applicant No. 1 by mutual consent executed divorce deed on 6-1-1996 but their separation did not last long as both executed a document deed on 23-2-1996 and started living together and as stated earlier, the second child was born on 16-9-1996. However, somewhere in the year 1997, again disputes cropped up between them and as per contentions of non-applicant no. 1, the applicant reached her and her children to her mother's place. There were allegations by the applicant against non-applicant No. 1 that she had illicit relations even prior to her marriage with the applicant and that the first child was born within a span of five months after the marriage. The applicant came to know about the illicit relations of non-applicant No. 1 when he found two letters Exhs. 43 and 45 in the house after non-applicant no. 1 left the house. Even as regards non-applicant No. 3, the applicant has denied the paternity on the ground that the applicant conceived when she was living separate from his since after October 1995. The applicant filed a petition bearing No. A-395 of 1997 in Family Court, Nagpur, seeking annulment of marriage and for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and that non-applicant No. 1 was living in adultery. As the applicant failed to make provisions of maintenance of non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 and also denied the paternity of non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 and levelled wild allegaions that non-applicant No. 1 was living in adultery, non-applicant No. 1 filed petition for maintenance vide Petition No. E/324/1997 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) THE learned Judge of the Family Court decided both the petitions by common judgment delivered on 6-1-2000. The Judge has totally rejected the contentions of the applicant relating to the allegations made against non-applicant No. 1 about her character as also about she having conceived non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 out of her extra marital relations. The Court also found that non-applicant No. 1 did conceive non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 out of sexual relations with the applicant and that the applicant has accepted by his conduct to be the father of non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3. The Court found that the applicant has treated the non-applicant No. 1 with cruelty. The court also found that it was applicant who was having extra marital relations with one Bhavana Sanait with whom he has married clandestinely during the subsistence of his marriage with non-applicant No. 1. So in keeping with these findings, the Court awarded the sum of Rs. 400/per month for non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 300/- each per month for non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 towards maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, this Revision Application.