STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMJI VITHAL CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a point of some interest on the interpretation of Section 361 of the Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts alleged by the prosecution were that wit. Rukhmabai was married to the respondent No. 1 Ramji Vithal Chaudhari, original accused No. 1, when Rukhmabai was only 7 or 8 years of age. For nearly 10 to 12 years the 1st respondent and the said Rukhmabai lived as a husband and wife and during that period a daughter by the name of Suman was born to her. In or about 1943 disputes arose between the 1st respondent and Rukhmabai. In or about the year 1944-45 the 1st respondent) married again with the result that Rukhmabai went to live with her father, one Hari Trimbak, with her minor daughter Suman. These disputes ultimately culminated in Rukhmabai filing a suit for divorce in the Court of the District Judge at Dhulia. A decree was passed in that suit in favour of Rukhmabai which ordered that the marriage between Rukhmabai and the 1st respondent was thereby annulled. The decree also directed that the minor girl Suman was to remain in the custody of Rukhmabai "till the defendant (the 1st respondent) gets himself appointed as the guardian of the minor under the Guardians and Wards Act". It is admitted that since the passing of the decree the minor Suman was residing with her mother Rukhmabai at the house of Hari Trimbak and Rukhmabai was and has been looking after the minor girl Suman, keeping her and giving her the necessary education.

(3.) AT all material times respondent No. 1 was residing in a different village called Shahade, which is about two miles away from the village Shinde where Hari Trimbak, Rukhmabai and Suman Were residing.