SO SINDHU GOROBA GAISAMUDRE Vs. GOROBA BUVAJI GAISAMUDRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL applicant Sindhu, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. Kallam, dated 15/2/1991. in Criminal Misc. Application No. 111 of 1990, which is lateron confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dated 28/9/1993 in Criminal revision Applications No. 36 of 1991 and 45 of 1991, refusing to grant maintenance to applicant as claimed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has filed the present application.

(2.) THE facts in brief, leading to the present application are that; the applicant Sindhu filed an application for maintenence under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. Kallam on 28/5/1990 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month for herself and Rs. 200. 00 per month for original applicant No. 2 from the opponent. It is claimed that her marriage with the opponent was performed on 23/5/1998 at Kallam. After the marriage, applicant resided with the respondent no. 1 initially at village Vida, Taluka Kaij and thereafter at Bombay. It is further claimed that the applicant conceived from the respondent No. 1. She was taken initially to her parents' house at the time of Diwali festival in 1988 and thereafter, for delivery purpose. She gave birth to original applicant No. 2 Harshwardhan in February 1989. It is further claimed that the applicant was thereafter taken along with her son to Bombay somtime in the year 1989, for cohabitation with opponent and thereafter, the opponent again took the applicant on 25. 2. 1990 to kallam, contending that the parents of applicant called her and thereafter, the opponent refused to take the applicant to his house inspite of the efforts made by the applicant, her brother and other relatives. It is contended that the brother of applicant took her along with the original applicant No. 2 on 1. 4. 1990 to bombay. The opponent refused to take the applicant and her son in the house and thereafter issued the notice on 7. 4. 1990 making several allegations. The opponent even refused to maintain the applicant and her son. Her brother again made another attempt on 20. 5. 1990 to convince the opponent, when he along with his other family members had been to Vida for the marriage of his brother on 22. 5. 1990 but invain. Thus, it is contended that there was neglect and refusal on the part of opponent. It is further claimed that the opponent used to ill treat the applicant with the hope that there will be change in the behaviour of opponent resided with him. However, the opponent continued his demand, insisted for the same and ultimately took the applicant on 25. 2. 1990 to Kallam, left the applicant at the parents' house of applicant and thereafter, refused to cohabit with the applicant. The applicant accordingly filed application for maintenance as referred above, contending that she is unable to maintain, herself. , there is refusal and neglect on the part of opponent and that the opponent is having sufficient means to pay the separate maintenance.

(3.) THE opponent appeared and filed say to the said application at Exhibit 8 on 15. 9. 1990. The fact that the marriage of applicant was performed with opponent on 23. 5. 1988 is not disputed. Even the paternity of the original applicant no. 2 is also not disputed. Thus, the relations between the parties are admitted by the opponent. However, other aspects regarding ill-treatment, were specifically denied. It is contended that there were no demands from the opponent as contended in the application. It is claimed that the brother of applicant took her from Bombay somewhere in the month of January 1990 and since then she is residing with her parents, without any sufficient cause. It is claimed that there is no neglect and refusal on his part and the opponent is ready and willing to co-habit with the applicant and also to maintain her, if she goes to reside with him. Even he admits about issuing the notice dated 7. 4. 1990 to the applicant. However, the applicant, according to him, at the instance of her brother has filed the false case.