HAFIJABI SULEMAN DARWAJKAR Vs. SULEMAN MOHAMMAD DARWAJKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter relates to claim of maintenance by the petitioner/applicant under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. The petitioner-applicant has prayed for issue of a writ by way of direction to call for the order dated 30th May, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revisional Application No. 59 of 1985 and to quash and set aside the same and consequently restore the order dated 1-10-1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajara in Cri. Misc. Application No. 10/83.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application viz. , Cri. Misc. Application 10 of 1983 under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that herself and the first respondent got married about 17 years prior to the filing of the application in village Ajara according to Muslim rites and customs. It is the further case of the petitioner that they lived together happily for about 10 years during which period the petitioner had 4 children out of the wed-lock. It is claimed by the petitioner that her father has got agricultural lands which are cultivated by the first respondent and that the father of the petitioner and the relatives had told the first respondent to transfer the said agricultural lands in the name of the petitioner and because of which the first respondent has been harassing the petitioner since about 1978. The petitioner would also put forward a case of illtreatment by the first respondent and failure on the part of the first respondent to provide her basic needs such as food and shelter etc. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was driven out of the house and that ever since then she has been residing in the house of the first respondent in a separate room where she is having her meals prepared separately in the same house. According to the petitioner the first respondent is working in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and is deriving monthly salary of Rs. 700 to 800/-, apart from getting income from agricultural lands to the tune of about Rs. 4000/- per year.

(3.) THE first respondent resisted the said application on various grounds. The first respondent contended that the petitioners father had given agricultural lands to him for cultivation on tenancy basis which he has purchased under section 32 (g) under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and because of it the petitioner had started picking up quarrels with him. It is the counter case of the first respondent that the present application has been filed by the petitioner only with an intention to harass him. The first respondent also denied having ill-treated the petitioner or beaten her or driven her out of house and in fact he would contend that the petitioner is residing in his house and the first respondent is paying Rs. 60/- per month as maintenance as decided by the members of the community. The first respondent also would deny the case of the petitioner with regard to the income that the first respondent is getting as salary as well as from the agricultural lands.