HIRAMAN LAXMAN JADHAV Vs. SOU BALUBAI HIRAMAN JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and Respondent No. 1 got married on 12th March, 1980 and thereafter Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the wife'') went to reside with the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the husband") at her matrimonial house in village Daravali, Tal. Mulshi in Pune District. According to the wife, she was not treated well by the members of the family of her husband who used to stay in Bombay for work and used to return to their village once in a month or so. The wife could not pull on well in the family of her husband as there was constant ill -treatment meted out to her. Hence she was obliged to leave the matrimonial home some time by the end of 1980 or in the beginning of 1981. Thereafter the wife sent a notice to her husband on 7th June, 1982 but as there was no reply. She filed Miscellaneous Application No. 202 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 7th Court, Pune, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for separate maintenance for herself, on 15th July 1982. The husband appeared in the trial Court and as a result of some talk a compromise was arrived at between the parties as a result of which the wife went to the house of her husband on 11th October, 1982 for cohabitation. The maintenance application was not disposed of and was kept pending in the trial Court. The husband by that time had not filed written statement in defence.

(2.) IT appears that after the wife was taken to Bombay, she complained of some pain in abdomen. The husband, therefore, took her for medical treatment and, according to him, it was revealed that the wife was pregnant running five months. He, therefore, took back his wife to her parents' place, and left her there. Thereafter he filed written statement on 11th April, 1983 in the trial Court contending that the wife was not entitled to separate maintenance as she was living in adultery.

(3.) BOTH the sides adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in the Court of the learned trial Magistrate who on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the wife had committed adultery and she was living in adultery and, therefore, she was not entitled to separate maintenance. He accordingly by his judgment and order dated 30th April, 1985 dismissed the application of the wife for separate maintenance with no order as to costs.