LAWS(BOM)-1985-10-27

MURLIDHAR CHINTAMAN WAGHMARE Vs. PRATIBHA MURLIDHAR WAGHMARE

Decided On October 09, 1985
MURLIDHAR CHINTAMAN WAGHMARE Appellant
V/S
PRATIBHA MURLIDHAR WAGHMARE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Application filed by the petitioner (original opponent) against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

(2.) The petitioner and the 1st respondent (original applicant) were legally wedded on 12-5-1967 as per Hindu religious rites. It was the second marriage of the petitioner which was performed after the death of his first wife who left behind a daughter from that marriage. After their marriage, the petitioner and the 1st respondent started residing at Neral in Taluka Karjat, District Raigad. In the initial period their relations were normal. However, thereafter, the petitioner and his mother started ill-treating the 1st respondent in the various ways. She was starved, harassed in various other ways by the petitioner and his mother. The petitioners abnormal sexual appetite subjected respondent No. 1 to physical sufferings. When she went to see her ailing brother on 31-10-1967 the petitioner was inceased out on her return. She was severely assaulted and was forced out of her marital home in the month of December 1967. Ever since, she has been residing with her brother at Pimpri. She has no source of income and hence she has to depend on her brother. The 1st respondent, therefore, claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month since the date of the filing of the maintenance application.

(3.) The present petitioner, who was respondent to the said application, filed his written statement denying the allegations of the 1st respondent. While admitting that the 1st respondent is his wife, the petitioner contended that it is the 1st respondent who is not willing to reside with him at her marital home. Hence she has come out with various imaginary incidents. He denied that he refused or neglected to maintain the 1st respondent and stated that she refused to stay with him without any justification. The petitioner also contended that the 1st respondent is in a position to maintain herself. He also denied that his monthly income is Rs. 1,500/-. According to him, he gets monthly salary of about Rs. 800/- only.