SHEKANNA GANGARAM Vs. PAREATIBAI SHEKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-husband Shekanna son of Cangaram has by this Criminal Revision Application challenged judgment and order dated 6-1-1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, allowing the maintenance application of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and granting them monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/ and Rs. 25/- respectively from the daw of the application dated 3rd May, 1982, which they had preferred in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kinwat.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision Application are that Respondent No. 1 Parvatibai is the wife of the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 Ganganna is one year old son of the petitioner and Respondent No.1 Respondent No. 1 filed Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Kinwat, for maintenance for herself anil her son Ganganna, who was then three months old, on the facts and circumstances that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that after the marriage, in the beginning the petitioner lived with her happily, but, later on, he started ill-treating her. She was not allowed to visit her parents nor were her parents allowed to take her to their residence. She was once sent to her parents with a warning that she should bring with her Rs. 1,500/- from her father. At that time, her ornamants were taken away by the petitioner. After the intervention of some persons, she again went to the house of the petitioner, but the petitioner again ill-treated her. Therefore, her father and one more person went to the house of the petitioner and brought her back. She contended that she was unable to maintain herself, and her child and that the annual income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 6,000/ and that she be granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- for herself and at the rate of Rs. 50/- for her son, Respondent No. 2 Ganganna. This application was resisted by the petitioner. He admitted that Respondent No. 1 was his wife and Respondnet No. 2 was his son, but contanded that he had not ill-treated Respondent No. 1. He further contended that Respondent No. 1 went away to her parents' place with ornamants and that he was ready and willing to maintain her. He also contended that he had no agricultural land and that he is an agricultural labour. He gates Rs. 3 to Rs. 4/- daily and thus, prayed that the application be rejected. The learned trial Magistrate went into the merits of this application and rejected it by his order dated 6-1-1983. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 on her behalf and on behalf of her one year old child Ganganna preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 1983 in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The learned Additional Sessions Judge went through the record and by a reasoned and well-considered order dated 6-1-1984 came to the conclusion that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to maintenance and that the petitioner was in a position to maintain them. Therefore, he allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Magistrates. He accordingly ordered the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- for Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 25/- for Respondent No. 2 with effect from the date of the application, namely, 3-5-1982.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, the petitioner-husband came to this Court in revision.