KAUSHALYABAI TUKARAM LAAD Vs. TUKARAM KISHAN LAAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Kaushalybai, being the legally wedded wife of non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram, filed an application under section 125 the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance allowance before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehekar inter alia alleging that it is twenty years since the marriage was solemnised and that it is still subsisting. It was her case that she co -habited with the non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram for about 17 years but she could not deliver the child and hence the non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram started ill -treating her. Further allegations were that the non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram prevailed upon her to give consent so that he could take a second wife for the purpose of having issues. After consent was denied, it was claimed by the petitioner that she was driven away after being treated in an inhuman manner. Thereafter, she again went back to the non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram but his behaviour did not improve and harassment continued unabated till she -was required to live separately. Taking this opportunity, the non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram married again to Godawaribai Bapurao Sanap who became his second wife. The petitioner claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month since according to her the non -applicant No. 1 s income from 16 acres of land can bear the burden.

(2.) THE non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram resisted the claim by denying all the allegations except that the petitioner was his legally wedded wife and they lived together for about 19 years. His further contention was that the petitioner had herself left the house after quarrelling with her mother -in -law and all efforts made to bring her back proved futile. He also expressed his inability to maintain the applicant separately.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate found that the petitioner was incapable of maintaining herself; that the non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram refused or neglected to maintain his wife despite having sufficient means and in keeping with these findings, awarded separate maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/ - per month, from the date of application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the non -applicant no. 1 Tukaram preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1984 before the Sessions Judge, Buldana. Similarly the petitioner feeling that compensation awarded was insufficient filed the Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 1985. By a common order dated 24.6.1986, the Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1984 was allowed dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 1985 also stood dismissed. The petitioner hence filed this Criminal Revision Application challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana. Though it is stated in the revision petition that part from treating this revision as filed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1984, it should also be treated as an application under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code in so far as the challenge is to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 1985. Since only the revision is filed, I have treated that revision as filed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1984 only.