SHOBHA KALIDAS LODE Vs. KALIDAS MAHADEORAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision applicant is wife of the respondent Kalidas. Her application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 100/1999 was granted by the learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, Warora by his order dated 25. 2. 2000. Respondent preferred revision application against that judgment and order vide Criminal Revision No. 69/2000 before the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions judge, Chandrapur. He allowed the said revision by his order dated 3. 5. 2006 whereby the application of the revision applicant under section 125 of Code Criminal procedure for grant of maintenance was dismissed. Revision applicant seeks to challenge that order.

(2.) It may be stated that revision applicant had preferred the aforesaid Misc. Criminal Application No. 100/1999 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, warora. According to her she is wife of respondent and they were blessed with one son and the daughter born out of this wedlock. After marriage revision applicant started residing with the respondent at village Chargaon (Dharan) , Tahsil Warora. It is alleged that few days thereafter, respondent started beating the petitioner. He was also asking her to bring the money from her father and suspecting her chastity. It is alleged that respondent had kept son and daughter with his mother at Warora and he was not allowing her to see them. He also used to reside with his mother leaving revision applicant alone in the village. It is alleged that the respondent had levelled false charge against revision applicant saying that she had mixed poison in chapaties which were to be served to him. She was also confined in the house. It is alleged that the respondent then called the father of revision applicant and drove her out of the house. Since then revision applicant is living in her parents home. Attempt of the applicant to join matrimonial company of the respondent failed. Respondent sent a notice to her calling a meeting of four respectable persons in the house of one gajanan Lode at Warora. On failure to attend the said meeting according to him, the said notice should have been treated as divorce. It is alleged that similar notice was published in daily 'lokmat' on 17. 6. 1999. Father erf the revision applicant attended the meeting to request the respondent to postpone the same. It is alleged that after waiting for some time for the respondent father of the revision applicant had to leave the house of the said Gajanan Lode. Thereafter, she sent reply to the notice of the respondent. Respondent by sending notice intimated that divorce between both of them had taken place after publishing public notice in the newspaper. She is contending that she is unable to maintain herself and the respondent has sufficient means to pay the maintenance, with such case she claimed Rs. 1500/- per month towards maintenance.

(3.) Respondent by filing say opposed the application. He admitted that she is his legally wedded wife. However, according to him, she was insisting to come to reside at village Nagari where her father resides, respondent refused to do the same. It is alleged that the respondent had become mentally ill and from 1985 to 1994, respondent was suffering. It is alleged that in 1994 revision applicant gave 'angara' [sacred sandal stick ash] to him saying that it was being given to him for the purpose of improvement in his health, however, respondent did not get any relief. It is alleged that sometime in the month of December 1996, revision applicant had served chapaties to him in his food, which contained poison, then he had called Police Patil of the village by name Ghularam Dolas who had seen those chapaties. It is alleged that revision applicant had admitted the incident and prayed for excuse. Thereafter, father of the revision applicant was called and he was told about the incident and some other persons were also called. Thereafter, she was taken to her maternal home. Exchange of notices has been admitted so also publication of the notice. It is claimed that the revision applicant is able to maintain herself whereas respondent is unable to pay any separate maintenance to her.