SOU. RAJASHREE Vs. SHRI. RAMCHANNDRA SHIVAJI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns Judgments and Orders dated 19/08/2004 and 30/06/2005 made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad ('JMFC') and the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad ('ASJ') denying the petitioner maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.').

(2.) Mr. S. T. Bhosale, learned Counsel for petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, who is a legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1, is unable to maintain herself and the neglect on the part of the husband is totally unjustified. He submits that the very marriage with the respondent no.1, was a product of fraud inasmuch as it was never disclosed to the petitioner that the respondent no.1 was dumb (unable to speak). He submitted that the petitioner was harassed by the respondent no.1 and at one stage, the brother of the respondent no.1 attempted to ravish the petitioner, taking undue advantage of the helpless situation in which the respondent no.1 was placed. He submitted that respondent nos.1 and 2 have sufficient income, both from service as well as agriculture and therefore, respondent nos.1 and 2 are dutybound to maintain the petitioner. Mr. Bhosale submitted that there is more than sufficient justification for the petitioner to stay away from the respondents, particularly considering the harassment meted out to her and the two Courts have erred in denying maintenance to the petitioner, on the alleged ground that the petitioner had deserted the respondent no.1 without any sufficient justification.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for petitioner, perused the record as well as the impugned Judgments and Orders, in my judgment, there is no case made out to interfere. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the JMFC and the ASJ that the petitioner, without any justification, has deserted the respondent no.1 and her two children. SubSection 4 of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, if she, without any sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband. In this case, as noted earlier, the two Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner, without any sufficient reason, has refused to live with her husband. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for petitioner, the notes of evidence (deposition) were perused. Upon perusal of the same, it cannot be said that the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the two Courts are vitiated by perversity or warrant interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.