SHASHIKALABAI SHARANAPPA KANJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL applicant Sow. Shashikalabai w/o sharnappa Kanje, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dated 30. 8. 1993, in criminal Revision Petition No. 108/92, filed the present petition.

(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, leading to the present petition are that : the present petitioner- original applicant had filed an application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur on 16. 04. 1990 against the present Respondent No. 2-Sharnappa Chandbasappa Kanje, contending that the marriage of applicant was performed with opponent on 25. 06. 1988 at Udgir. It is claimed that after marriage, the applicant started residing with opponent at village Shivni, However, the opponent maintained the applicant for fifteen days properly and thereafter started illtreating her and made an unlawful demand of Rs. 25,000/- and 20 grams of gold. It is further contended that the opponent threatened the applicant saying that if she fails to fulfil the said demand, he will perform second marriage with one Rupa d/o Malkarjun Somanna of village Shivani. It is also alleged that the applicant informed the opponent that her parents are poor and they are not in a position to fulfil the said demand. However, the opponent continued to illtreat her. After one month, the Respondent No. 2 original opponent beat the applicant and driven her out from his house and warned her that she should not return to his house unless the demands are fulfilled. Ultimately, the applicant came to her parents house. The Respondent-original opponent has not taken the applicant for cohabitation nor made any effort in that respect. However, on 24. 12. 1988, he performed second marriage with rupa d/o Malkarjun Somanna in a temple and accordingly neglected and refused to maintain the applicant. It is also contended that the applicant is unable to maintain herself. So far as regards income of opponent is concerned, it is contended that the opponent is serving as head Master at village Bhalki and getting salary of approximately Rs. 1800/- per month and he is having agricultural land to the extent of 17 to 18 acres at village shivani. Thus, it is contended that the opponent is having sufficient income to pay separate maintenance. So far as marriage of opponent with rupa is concerned, it is contended that the applicant has filed a separate criminal case under s. 494 of I. P. C. and the same is pending. It is also claimed that the marriage of opponent with Rupa is performed in Papnashling temple at Village Shivani.

(3.) THE opponent appeared in the said proceedings, filed his say and denied the allegation about performing marriage with Rupa. He also denied refusal and neglect on his part in maintaining the applicant. However, it is contended that the applicant insisted opponent to reside at udgir and as the opponent has refused to do so, the applicant is not ready to reside with the opponent. It is further alleged by the opponent that the applicant was insisting that the land which is standing in the name of the father of the opponent should be transferred in her name and as the opponent has failed to transfer the said land, she is not ready to reside with him, though the opponent is ready and willing to take her at Shivani for cohabitation. So far as regards income is concerned, according to the opponent, his salary is Rs. 1400/- and after deducting some amounts, he is hardly getting Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- per month. He has to maintain his parents and he is residing at Bhalki on account of his service. According to him, there is no neglect and refusal on his part. Even the maintainability of the application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, latur is challenged as it was contended that the applicant resides at Udgir and, therefore, her application for maintenance at Latur is not maintainable. He, therefore, requested to reject the application for maintenance.