TEJABAI Vs. SHANKARRAO BASWANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional sessions judge, Latur, Arising out of an order passed under S. 488, Cr. P. C. by the learned judicial Magistrate, F. C. Udgir, awarding separate maintenance at the rate of the Rs. 30 per month to the wife. The wife, the Tejabai was married to the shankarrao Baswanappa in about 1954, when she was a minor. Shankarrao has a first she was the time. Tajbai filed the application of under S. , 488 Cr P. C on 29-11-1963, alleging that the she was treated well for about a year after the a marriage and that she was ill - treated thereafter, and , finally, beaten and driven out of the hours on 23-11-1963. She therefore claimed maintenance at the husband had an annual to agricultural income of Rs. 3,000 and used to each Rs. 90 p. m. by was of salary as a Talati the allegations of ill - treatments were denied by the husband. He alleged that the Tejbai lived with him for about eight years after he marriage, and that she had left him time of Nagpanchami in the year before the application was filed. He further, alleged that the he has called her to this house, but she was refusing to return to him. He therefore, contended that she was not entitled to any maintenance.

(2.) THE learned judicial Magistrate held that the alleged ill - treatment had not been proved. At the see t ime, he was of the maintenance, "neglected or refusal to maintain" being presumed on account or the husband having another wife. He therefore, ordered that the husband Shankarrao should pay Rs. 30 p. m. as maintenance's to her.

(3.) SHANKARRAO, thereupon, filed a revision petition in the court of the sessions Judge at Latur. The learned Additional session judge held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to the pass the order maintenance merely on the ground of the Shankarrao having a second wife. He was of the view that the amendment of to sub =section (3) of S. 488 Cr. P. C. by Act 9 of the 1949, did not enlarge the ambit of the provision did of S. 488 (1) of the Cr. P. C. and did not supply a new ground for claiming maintenance.