SUNDRABAI MURLIDHAR ADUSAL Vs. MURLIDHAR KRISHNA ADSUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Revision Application preferred by the petitioner-wife Sundrabai Murlidhar Adsul for and on her behalf and on behalf of her son Kalyan Murlidhar Adsul challenging the judgment and order dated 13th February 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 125 of 1983.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision Application are as under :- Petitioner No. 1 Sundrabai filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 1981 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ashti, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for maintenance for herself and her son Petitioner No. 2, Kalyan Murlidhar Adsul. The application was directed against her husband Respondent No. 1 Murlidhar Krishna Adsul. Her case was that she was married to Respondent No. 1 as per Hindu rites at village Ghose, taluka Karmala, district Solapur, on 12th May 1965. After her marriage, she was residing with Murlidhar as his wife at his house. She gave birth to Petitioner No. 2 Kalyan within a period of two years of her marriage with Respondent No. I. According to her, her husband always was pressurising her to bring motor cycle and five tolas of gold from her parents and on account of his demand being unsatisfied he started ill-treating her. She alleged that after the birth of her son Kalyan, her father and brother made attempts to take her to the house of her husband, but her husband flatly refused to keep her till she brought a motor cycle and five tolas of gold ornaments from her presents. Therefore, she was constrained to take shelter at the house of her parents with her minor child. She then alleged that during the subsistence of her marriage with Respondent No. 1, he married another woman by name Kasturbai of village Wangi, taluka Karmala, district Solapur, and the said Kasturbai is residing with him as his wife. According to Petitioner No. 1, her husband is a rich farmer and has got handsome landed property from which he derives net yearly income of Rs. 25,000. She, therefore, demanded monthly maintenance of Rs. 200 for herself and Rs. 100 for her son Kalyan in her application as she was unable to maintain herself and her minor school-going son. The application was resisted by Respondent No. 1 and it was his case that Petitioner No. 1 was not his legally wedded wife as no marriage had taken place between him and Petitioner No. 1. He further contended that at no time Petitioner No. 1 had gone to reside at his house as his wife and the question of Petitioner No. 2 being born out of their wedlock does not arise. He, therefore, contended that Petitioners Nos. I and 2 are not entitled to any maintenance from him. He also contended that Petitioner No. 1 was living an adulterous life and Petitioner No. 2 was a product thereof.

(3.) On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned trial Magistrte come to the conclusion that Petitioner No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of Respondent No. 1 and that Petitioner No. 2 was born out of their lawful wedlock. He also came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 neglected and refused to maintain Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 although he was having sufficient means. He accordingly concluded that Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled for separate maintenance from Respondent No. 1. Thus, by his judgment and order dated 28th July, 1983, he directed Respondent No. 1 to pay a monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100 to Petitioner No. 1 Sundrabai and Rs. 100 to Petitioner No. 2 Kalyan with effect from the date of the application being 5th March 1981.