BAYABAI Vs. MUKUND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Bayahai had presented an application under section 175 of the Code Criminal Procedure before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Yeotmal, Miscellaneous Criminal Case no locus standi claiming maintenance from her husband Mukund the present non-applicant No 1. The main ground on the basis of which she claimed grant of separate maintenance was that after her marriage with non-applicant Mukund, he had illtreated her and had also reached her hack to her parent's house. Her further contention was that she is unable to maintain herself and the non-applicant husband having refused and neglected to maintain her, she is entitled to claim separate maintenance. She has claimed Rs. 200 per month as maintenance.

(2.) Non-applicant Mukund contested the said proceedings on all counts. Primarily he denied the fact that the applicant was his legally wedded wife. According to him, she was his paternal aunt's daughter and as such she was within the prohibited degrees of marriage and both of them are sapinda of each other, and as such the marriage being void she had no locus standi to claim any maintenance as a wife. He also denied the allegation that she was illtreated by the non-applicant. The Trial Court by its order dated 24th Sept., 1982 found that the applicant was not the legally wedded wife or Mukund and as such on that ground alone he dismissed the petitioner's application. However, for the purpose of record, on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, the trial Judge concluded that the applicant has not proved that the non-applicant No. 1 Mukund had refused and neglected to maintain her. He also concluded that the applicant had no sufficient cause to stay separately from the non- applicant. Lastly again for the purposes of record the trial Court concluded that in case the applicant is entitled to maintenance, she would be granted Rs. 100 per month. In the result, however, the trial Court had dismissed the application on the very first ground.

(3.) The applicant wife thereafter preferred a criminal revision application No. 97 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal. The learned Sessions Judge by its order dated 29th July, 1983 dismissed the revision application, agreeing with the trial Court, that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was void.