DNYANDEO Vs. RADHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is filed by husband -Dnyandeo against his wife Radhabai. They were married in the year 1970 and got two daughters and one son out of their wedlock. They lived together upto the year 1978 and thereafter, they started having some disputes. It appears that there was some settlement between the parties on 22 -5 -1978 and an agreement was reduced into writing which is signed by the applicant. It is at Exhibit 35. The applicant had agreed that he misbehaved on earlier occasions and made false allegations against non -applicant Radhabai. He admitted his mistake and assured to behave properly in future. He also assured to maintain Radhabai -his wife and children. It seems that even after the agreement Exhibit -35, they were not putting well and therefore, the applicant was required to approach the Court for filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It is numbered as 193 of 1981 and was decided ex parte on 20 -10 -1981 in which decree was also passed for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) THE non -applicant Radhabai did not go to reside with the petitioner due to the fact that the petitioner had married one Sushila. He was residing with Sushila and therefore, the non -applicant refused to go with him. Then it appears that she tried to patch up the differences, but again she was forced to live with her parents because of the ill -treatment by the petitioner. Non -applicaut Radhabai, therefore, filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance. It was registered as Criminal Application No. 5 of 1983. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 11 -4 -1984 rejected the same on the ground that there is no evidence about the desertion of wife by applicant. The learned Magistrate also held that since their children are being; maintained by the applicant, he has no reason to desert Radhabai. He disbelieved the evidence about the marriage of Sushila with the applicant. Thus, on the aforesaid two grounds, the application of Radhabai was rejected. Feeling aggrieved therefore, Radhabai filed Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1984 before the Sessions Court at Akola. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola by an order dated 1 -4 -1985 allowed the revision and granted maintenance of Rs. 60 per month to Radhabai. The present revision is directed against this order of grant of maintenance of Rs. 60 to the non -applicant by the applicant.

(3.) SHRI Lambat, the learned counsel for the applicant, urged that tho finding of the revisional Court that the non -applicant is entitled for maintenance is wrong. According to him, the findings of the learned Magistrate who had rejected the application of Radhabai are based on sound reasonings and evidence on record and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have rejected the revision.