JANABAI PANDIT PAWAR Vs. PANDIT SHAMJI PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by wife who was granted maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the rate of 200/- p. m. by an order dated 19-1-1995 in Misc. Application No. 1090/90 dated 19-1-1995 on the file of J. M. F. C. , Malegon Nashik. The husband-respondent filed revision before the District and Sessions Judge at Malegaon, District Nashik as Criminal Revision Application No. 80 of 1995 and the order of maintenance was set aside by the Sessions Court. The petitioner challenges that order in this petition.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge, though confirmed the liability of husband-respondent to maintain the petitioner, set aside the order of maintenance on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the means of livelihood of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance as the application was time barred. She has made application for maintenance after 10 years. She could not continue with her husband and she stayed alongwith her son-in-law. I do not agree with the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. Simply because wife could not make an application for maintenance for a long period will not dis-entitle her for claiming maintenance. It may be that she was not required any help from the husband for her maintenance because of the then circumstances existing. But after the changed circumstances as she was not in a position to maintain herself, she could approach the Magistrate Court under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The law of limitation will not apply in such circumstances.

(3.) IN the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 9-2-1996 is set aside. Petition allowed.