VISHWANATH Vs. VATSALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order passed the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Buldana, on 5.9.1985 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10 of 1984, granting maintenance of Rs. 250/ - p.m. to the wife and Rs. 100/ - p.m. to the son under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. duly confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana, on 27.1.1986, in Criminal Revision No. 102 of 1985, has been challenged before this Court. The inherent powers of this Court are sought to be invoked as obvioulsy the remedy of revision is barred.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation are peculiar and are interesting. Admittedly, the present petitioner and the respondent No. 1 Vatsalabai are husband and wife, and the - marital tie still subsists Rajesh is the male child of this couple. The petitioner was in military service and had to suffer transfers from place to place. In or about 1963, he was posted to Ferozpur. The respondent No.1 Vatsalabai became pregnant while at Ferozpur and she was sent to her parents at Chikhali for delivery. It was some time in 1963. Respondent No. 2 Rajesh was born there. It is, however, the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that since then the petitioner never cared either for their residence or the maintenance. They have been left at the mercy of the parents of respondent No. 1. It is the case that the husband has deserted them and he has refused to maintain them.

(3.) IN 1976, the respondent no. 1 filed a Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 1976 for arrears of maintenance and future maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act against the present petitioner. Similarly, the present petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad vide Hindu Marriage Petition No. 26 of 1975. The respondents suit for maintenance came to be dismissed. I am told that petitioners suit for restitution of conjugal rights was not pursued. The position which prevailed in 1976 and onwards was that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did pursue a remedy in the Civil Court for maintenance but that remedy was negatived by the competent court.