HEMLATA @ VRUSHALI Vs. PRAVIN BHAURAO DARNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Akola in E-Petition No.102/2017 rejecting the maintenance petition of the applicant dtd. 5/7/2022 is under challenge in the present revision application.

(2.) The applicant and non-applicant are legally wedded on 25/12/2015 as per the Hindu Rights and Religion. After marriage, the applicant resumed cohabitation at the house of the non-applicant. As per allegations in the application, it is demonstrated to her by family members of the non-applicant that the non- applicant is Lecturer and drawing handsome salary having his house and agricultural lands at Yavatmal and Sukli respectively. On resuming the cohabitation, it revealed to her that the non-applicant is having only one room to stay and the non-applicant also informed her that she has to stay at Sukli as he is unable to incur the expenses by staying at Yavatmal. She further alleged that the non- applicant has refused and neglected her by ignoring her and he was not returning home for 2-3 days. Though she made her grievance to the parents of the non-applicant, they have also not paid any heed towards it. It further revealed to her that one Manish Darne was shown to be nominee in the service record of the non-applicant from which it revealed to her that the non-applicant was already married and having a son from the said marriage. Thus, the non-applicant has concealed his previous marriage as well as his financial condition which constrained the applicant to leave the matrimonial house and, therefore, she is residing separately. It is further alleged that she was subjected for ill-treatment by the non-applicant and, therefore, she was constrained to file the petition for grant of maintenance.

(3.) The non-applicant denied all contentions of the applicant by filing his reply and contended that the applicant has resided with him for 10 months and during that period her behaviour was not proper. It is further contended that the applicant suspected by seeing the pass book and misunderstood that said Manish is the son of the non-applicant. In fact, it was the mistake committed by the concerned bank and the bank officer deposed in a matrimonial proceeding that mistakenly the said name is mentioned as nominee of the non-applicant and that mistake is corrected. Despite due efforts taken by the non-applicant, the applicant has not resumed cohabitation and without any sufficient reason, she has withdrawn herself from the company of the non-applicant and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.