SHARDA SOU Vs. GANPATRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrimati Sharda wife of Ganpantrao Kadu the applicant in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- from the date of application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction maintained the said order against her husband Ganpantrao Kadu-the non-applicant, so far the liability and quantum is concerned but modified the order by directing payment only from the date of the order, on the grounds that (i) normal rule under sub-section (2) of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to order payment from the date of order; (ii) no reasons are recorded for deviating from the normal rule (iii) direction to pay arrears would amount to punishment to the husband and such a course should be avoided.

(2.) Application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was filed on 25th May, 1984 and was decided on 6th February, 1987. Maintenance has been quantified at Rs. 200/- per month. The findings of fact affirmed by the Sessions Judge are (i) the marriage was solemnized on 2nd July, 1979; (ii) within three months of the marriage there was demand for money from the wifes father by the husbands father; (iii) the wife did not conceive for some years; (iv) she was being ill-treated throughout; (v) there was miscarriage around 17th February, 1984; (vi) she was taken to fathers house for treatment on 1st March, 1984; (vii) husband had a second marriage with Padma wife of Zingraji who delivered a child on 28th February, 1985; (viii) husband neither went to her fathers place to fetch his wife nor to enquire about her health after abortion; (ix) the husband completely neglected to maintain the wife who had even justification to stay separately; (x) husband had ancestral property such as agricultural fields, cattlesheds, was running a dairy and his income was not less than Rs. 20,000/ per annum : (xi) father of the wife is a poor primary school teacher who spent for the treatment of his daughter.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate noticed the above circumstances, and in the penultimate paragraph observed that all show of affection in these proceedings towards the wife by the husband was make believe, his offer to maintain the wife was not genuine and was as after thought and directed maintenance from the date of application.