MANOHAR GANPATRAO MOHITE Vs. USHA MANOHAR MOHITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the applicant-husband in a proceeding instituted for maintenance by his respondent wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. P. C.). The respondent claimed that she was legally married wife of the petitioner, the marriage having taken place on 15-5-1960. According to her, she resided with her husband till 27-12-1963. However, according to her, the Behaviour of the pstitioner with her was far from satisfactory and that under the influence of his parents, he used to misbehave with her. On 27-l2-1963 she was driven out of the house by her husband since then she was living with her parents. It was her further case that the petitioner had contacted a second marriage on 7-2-1980, which also showed that he was neglecting her. She claimed that the petitioner did not pay anything to her towards her maintenance. She, therefore, filed an application claiming maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125, Cr. P. C. on 3-3-1980.

(2.) In reply to her application under Section 125, Cr. P. C., it was the case of the petitioner that there was a mutual divorce between the parties as per the divorce deed dated 27-12-1973. According to him, it was because of the divorce between the parties, that the respondent left his house and started residing with her parents. According to him, it was only after the long delay of about 17 years that she filed an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against him, which showed that the said application was not bona fide. At this stage it may also be noticed that the respondent wife had also filed a criminal complaint under Section 494), Indian Penal Code (for short I. P. C.) against the petitioner in respect of the offence of biga my, which was also tried by the same trial Judge in whose court the instant proceedings for maintenance were pending. It is further alleged by the petitioner that on 6-2-1982, the parties made an application to consolidate the two cases for the purpose of reading common evidence in both the cases. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 6-2-1982 that both the cases were linked up together for reading evidence.

(3.) The parties led evidence in the case and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Magistrate held in favour of the petitioner rejecting the application of the respondent for maintenance by his order dated 31-3-1982. Although there is no order produced on record, there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was acquitted of an offence under Section 494, I. P. C. because of the finding of the learned trial Magistrate that the divorce between the parties was proved by the petitioner. It is further not in dispute that no revision or any other further proceedings were takqn by the respondent in respect of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case filed by her for punishing him for an offence under Section 494, I. P. C.