LAWS(BOM)-1987-10-64

SAHADEO Vs. DURGA AND ANOTHER

Decided On October 30, 1987
SAHADEO Appellant
V/S
DURGA AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Criminal Case No. 82 of 1983 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha on 28.8.1986, ordering the applicant to pay separate maintenance allowance of Rs. 300.00 per month, the applicant has filed this revision challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the applicant Sahadeo is the husband of the non-applicant Durga. Their marriage was solemnised on 18th July, 1967 at Wardha according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the parties resided at Kamptee for about six months or so. The non-applicant Durga alleged that for no fault on her part, the applicant-Sahadeo and his mother used to ill-treat her and made her life miserable. As a result thereof, she fell seriously ill. She further alleged that the applicant did not provide for medical treatment and instead, called her father and uncle to Kamptee for taking her to Wardha. On receipt of the letters, Namdeorao, her uncle reached Kamptee where he was informed by the applicant to take back the non-applicant to Wardha if he wanted to see her alive. The non-applicant was hence taken to Wardha where she was promptly given medical aid but it took about four to five months before the health could be restored. During the period of her illness, no enquiries were made by the applicant nor he spent money for the treatment. Upon restoration of the health of the non-applicant, her father and uncle sent messages to the applicant to take her back in matrimonial home but the applicant did not respond. It was only on 23rd Sept., 1983 that the non-applicant sent notice claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350.00 per month. The notice was returned back with the endorsement 'refused'. Based on these facts, the non-applicant stated that she herself is incapable of maintaining herself having no source of income whatsoever; whereas her husband was in employment of the Nagpur Improvement Trust earning well and can easily maintain her.

(3.) The applicant vehemently opposed the claim of the non-applicant for maintenance. While admitting the relationship of husband and wife, he denied the allegations relating to ill-treatment either by himself or by his mother and consequently the illness of the non-applicant. In specific the applicant pleaded that the non-applicant, his wife was a quarrelsome lady and she did not know in what manner she has to behave with himself and other members of the family. He further alleged that he could not even consummate the marriage because of her refusal to have co-habitation. According to the applicant, it was the non-applicant who called his father and uncle by writing a letter. Upon their visit, she left the marital home without his consent within a week or so immediately after the marriage. In short, the defence of the applicant was that she deserted him of her own free will and hence, she was not entitled to claim separate maintenance allowance. Attempts made by him to call her back and join his company miserably failed. An offer to maintain her at his residence was also made in reply (Ex. 8) provided she was willing to come back.