LAXMIBAI ALIAS SHESHABAI Vs. EKNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy raised in this petition is rather unfortunate. The Petitioner in Criminal Application No. 320/1984 alleging herself to be the legally married wife of Respondent No. 1 Eknath initiated the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Parbhani. It was her simple case that she was married to Respondent No. 1 about 9 years prior to the petition. For the first four years, she was tolerably well treated. But thereafter the ill -treatment started and ultimately she was driven out from the house in 1979. Since then the husband has refused to accept her under his shelter. It is also her contention that attempts were made by her parents to settle everything amicably but they proved futile. It is her main contention that since 1979 the husband has not provided her with even a penny either for her maintenance or for her medical treatment. She is completely dependent upon her father for her maintenance. Her father also due to old age is unable to maintain her. It is also her contention that due to her ill -health she is not able to do any physical work to earn something for her. Even the custom by which she is governed does not permit to do any physical work in the village. It was also her contention that near - about 1982, the husband married another wife and since then that woman is staying with him. It was her contention that her husband has about 14 acres of land and earns sumptuous income of Rs. 20,000/ - per year. She has, therefore, claimed Rs. 200/ - per month by way of maintenance which is necessary for her maintenance.

(2.) THE husband resisted the claim of the wife by his written statement Exhibit 7. He denied that the petitioner was his wife. According to him, he never married the Petitioner. The petition is alleged to be bogus, incorrect and false The question of ill -treating and driving her out of the house, according to him, does not arise. According to him, he married Sheshabai in the year 1973. That was the only marriage he performed. According to him, his annual income from the agricultural lands is Rs. 10,000/ - and not Rs. 20,000/ - per year. On these counts, he opposes the claim of the wife for maintenance.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate on merits held that the Petitioner has not been able to prove the factum of marriage with the non -applicant. In view of this, the learned Magistrate held that the other issues do not arise for decision. On this finding, he rejected the application.