GOVIND KEDARI BIBE Vs. ALKA GOVIND BIBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No representation on behalf of the petitioner. For respondent No.1 Mrs. Malti Pailkar, Shri. S.R. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2 State.

(2.) This writ petition arises out of a maintenance Application filed by the 1st respondent before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati in M.A. No.28 of 1985. The learned Magistrate rejected the first respondent's application on the ground that she has not proved the factum of neglect to maintain her. The Magistrate also found that even though there is allegation against that petitioner, of second marriage, no evidence has been adduced by the first respondent. For these reasons, the application for maintenance came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the 1st respondent-wife filed Revision Application before Addl. Sessions Judge, Baramati in Criminal Revision Application No. 85/8/89. The learned Judge found that the applicant wife has made in her application the specific plea that the petitioner had married a second wife, one Ratan daughter of Jagannath Bharne and it is also stated herein that she is residing with him and that a child was bone in that relation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that, in spite of specific allegations made by the wife in her application for maintenance, except a bald and general denial, the petitioner did not come forward with specific denial on these allegations. He has stated in his evidence that 1st respondent was suffering from Tuberculosis and on account of that she has to be sent to maternal house and during her absence, second marriage was contracted by the petitioner with one Ratan. The learned Judge has found that it was proved that wife was suffering from Tuberculosis and she has been sent away. The Judge also has found this circumstances to support the case of the 1st respondent-wife. Therefore, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge has reached the conclusion that the Magistrate was wrong and held that it is the primary duty of a husband to maintain his wife. This view appears to be correct and no infirmity is pointed out in the revision order. No interference is therefore, called for.

(3.) In the result, writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No orders as to costs.