(1.) THIS Family Court Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred by the appellant-original respondent (husband) challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated December 15, 1992 passed by the Family Court, Pune.
(2.) THE respondent is the wife of the appellant. Marriage is not disputed. The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the appellant-husband has ill-treated her and driven her out of the matrimonial home. She further alleged that husband has not provided any maintenance to her. She further alleged that the husband has married a second wife Anita Vishwanath Kadam and this marriage took place on 8-5-1991. She further pleaded that the husband is gainfully employed. She, therefore, prayed that she be granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The husband filed written statement and denied all the allegations, except that the respondent is his wife. He then pleaded that the respondent-wife has, without any rhyme or reason left him and she is reluctant to come back and stay with him in the matrimonial home. He pleaded that the respondent is also earning Rs. 600 per month. Her claim is false and the same be dismissed.
(3.) IN paragraph 4 of his judgment, the learned Trial Judge has given the dates to indicate how the appellant-husband remained absent during trial. Result, therefore, is that the appellant did not contest the proceedings. Respondent, in support of her case, got her statement recorded and pleaded all the circumstances enabling her to ask for maintenance. The learned trial Judge after going through the material on record reached a finding that the respondent-wife has been ill-treated by the husband and he has also married Anita Kadam on 8/5/1991. The learned Trial Judge further held that out of this wedlock, the husband got a child. Consistent with this finding, the learned Trial Judge held that the respondent-wife is justified in living separate and asking for maintenance.