LAWS(BOM)-1993-1-80

HULGAVVA G KUNCHIKURVE Vs. GANGARAM YELLAPPA KUNCHIKURVE

Decided On January 29, 1993
Hulgavva G Kunchikurve Appellant
V/S
GANGARAM YELLAPPA KUNCHIKURVE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bombay on a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The original petitioner Hulgavva claiming to be the wife of the original Gangaram Yellappa Kunchikurve applied to the Court for grant of maintenance to herself as also the six children which were born to her from the respondent husband. In her application she averred that she had been residing as the legally wedded wife of the respondent Gangaram in a hut at Kumbharwada, Dharavi along with her children and this hut belonged to her. A few months before the presentation of the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay, the husband had started insisting upon selling away the hut. She had opposed this move which resulted in the commencement of her ill-treatment. The respondent-husband has taken another woman in his keeping and was living with her in another hut at a short distance from the petitioner's wife's hut. The petitioner alleged, this amounted to a refusal to maintain both as regards her and the children, at the instance of the respondent husband. In her application, dated 20.11.1984 to the Metropolitan Magistrate she, therefore, prayed for a monthly maintenance allowance for herself at the date of Rs 150 per month and at the rate of Rs 100 for each of the five children they being minors and the eldest child having by that time already attained majority.

(3.) The respondent-husband made some basic categoric denials. According to him, the petitioner was not at all his legally wedded wife. He had kept her as his mistress for a few months near about 1983. At that time he had already a legally wedded wife Yankamma. From the petitioner Hulgavva as the mistress two issues, both sons, were admittedly born to her. As regards the remaining four children, he disowns his paternity. No maintenance allowance can be claimed in the circumstances by and on behalf of the petitioner and the four minor children.