DNYANESHWAR S O MAROTI BHUSARI Vs. PUSHPABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original opponent Dnyaneshwar Maroti bhusari, being dissatisfied with the order dated 28-7-2001, passed by the principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in Petition No. E-753/2000 directing him to play maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the original applicant No. 1 - present Respondent No. 1, from the date of application, filed criminal Revision Application No. 283/2001, whereas original applicants No. 1 and 2, being dissatisfied with the said order refusing to grant maintenance to the applicant No. 2 Yogesh and granting inadequate maintenance to the applicant no. 1, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 49/2002 with a request to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month to each of the applicants.

(2.) As both these Revisions are arising out of the very same order, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, I feel it desirable to dispose of these Revisions by this common order.

(3.) The facts in nutshell, leading to the present Revisions, are tha t: original applicant No. 1 Pushpabai and applicant No. 2 Yogesh Bhusari have filed an application on 21-11-2000 for maintenance under section 125 of the criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court, Aurangabad. In the said application, it was contended that marriage of applicant No. 1 was performed with the opponent in the month of June, 1990 at village Dhangarwadi, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. It was further claimed that applicant No. 1, after the marriage, started cohabiting with the opponent and out of the said wedlock gave birth to applicant No. 2. It is further claimed that the opponent initially maintained the applicants properly and the relationship of applicant No. 1 and opponent, as husband and wife, is still subsisting. It was, however, alleged that the opponent, after a period of two years, started illtreating applicant No. 1 and he used to beat her under the influence of liquor. Even the sister of opponent, namely Sangeeta, tried to administer poison to the applicant No. 1. It was alleged that the opponent thereafter driven out the applicants from his house. The applicants thereafter made an attempt to convince the opponent to allow them to reside with him, however, the opponent refused to the same and thereby neglected and refused to maintain them. It was claimed that the applicants are not able to maintain themselves. They are presently residing at Aurangabad. The applicant No. 1 is doing household work and the applicant No. 2 is taking education. It was further claimed that the opponent is having 100 acres agricultural land and getting income of more than Rs. 15 to 20 lacs per year. It was contended that he is also doing the business of milk selling. It was further alleged that the opponent has performed second marriage somewhere in the year 1995 and, therefore, it is claimed that the applicants have every right to claim separate maintenance. A request was accordingly made to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month to each of the applicants.