DADASAHEB UTTAM PURNALE Vs. BEBI DADASAHEB PURNALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22nd Aug., 2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.52 of 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shevgaon and the judgment and order dated 20th Aug., 2005 passed by the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision No.297 of 2003, confirming thereby the order passed by the Magistrate as aforesaid, the original Respondent/husband preferred this criminal writ petition.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal writ petition are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's grandfather died on 1st May, 1997 and marriage as alleged by the Respondent/wife could not have been performed on 11th May, 1997. The learned counsel submits that, as per the custom and traditions, 13 days sad period is observed in case of death in a family and therefore, there was no question of performing any marriage as such. The learned counsel submits that the Respondent/wife has examined her father and maternal uncle, who have deposed about the presence of grandfather of the Petitioner/husband in the socalled marriage, when the grandfather of Petitioner/husband died prior to the alleged date of solemnization of the marriage. The learned counsel submits that the Courts below have given reference to the general custom prevailing in the Hindu community. It is nobody's case that after curtailing the sad period, the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized. However, the Courts below have considered the said custom and drawn inference that the marriage could have been performed in the period within 13 days after the death of the grandfather of Petitioner/husband. The learned counsel submits that the Respondent/wife has failed to prove the marriage invitation card and the medical card showing the termination of her pregnancy, though produced on record. The learned counsel submits that, however, the Courts below have unnecessarily given weightage to the charge sheet vide R.C.C. No.33 of 1999 wherein the Petitioner/husband came to be acquitted by the Court. The learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment and orders are therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.