LAWS(BOM)-1986-4-35

SURYA KANTA Vs. TUKARAM ANANDRAO MORE

Decided On April 24, 1986
Surya Kanta Appellant
V/S
Tukaram Anandrao More Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amaravati in Criminal Revision Application No. 212 of 1984 on 16 -10 -1985 setting aside the order dated 23 -8 1984, in Misc. Class, Achalpur, dismissing the application filed by the applicant Suryakanta under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE applicant is a legally married wife of the non -applicant Tukaram, their marriage having been solemnised about 18 years back and in the course of wedlock, she gave birth to 4 daughters from him. It was the case of the applicant -wife that she was being ill -treated by the non -applicant -Tukaram and his family members. The applicant was not given proper food and clothing. Ultimately, about five and half years back, non -applicant Tukaram drove away the applicant -wife and she and her two daughters were required to take shelter at her mother's place. About 3 years back, the non -applicant Tukaram took away the two daughters in the absence of the applicant and all the while non -applicant -Tukaram neglected to maintain the applicant. Apart from ill -treatment and neglect to maintain her, it was also her case that some 21 years back, non -applicant -Tukaram took one Rekha daughter of Gulabrao Borkhade of Salepur as his second wife and she is residing with him. Rekha gave birth to one daughter name Sunita from the non -applicant -Tukaram. The applicant is unable to maintain herself, whereas the non -applicant -Tukaram is a man of substantial means and had the capacity to maintain her. The applicant claimed Rs. 150 per month by way of separate maintenance allowance.

(3.) THE non -applicant -Tukaram vehemently resisted the claim and he denied that the applicant was in any way ill -treated or was not given food and clothing, according to him all the 4 daughters were residing with him and at no point of time, he drove away the applicant from his house. The non -applicant -Tukaram also denied he neglected to maintain the applicant. His defence was that he always kept the applicant at his place very affectionately but the pity was that she always pestered non -applicant to live separately from his old parents and brothers. This was not possible with result that the applicant got annoyed and started troubling him. It was on 24 4 -1978 that the applicant left the house once for all never to return to back leaving all the children with him. The sustained efforts made to bring her back were thwarted by the applicant. Notices were also exchanged between the parties. The non -applicant -Tukaram further expressed his willingness to keep and maintain the applicant at his place. Regarding the income, the non -applicant - Tukaram disclosed that he earned only Rs. 1,500 per year out of which he has to maintain his 4 daughters and also the aged parents and hence expressed his inability to maintain the applicant separately. Besides this, it was also the defence of the non -applicant -Tukaram that the applicant was earning Ra. 5 per day which is more than sufficient to maintain herself. The allegations about the second marriage with Rekha were denied by the non -applicant - Tukaram.