SHAKUNTALA Vs. VITHALRAO AKARAM NAVKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No. 77/86 dated 8 -9 -1988, the applicant has come in revision.

(2.) THE main contention of the applicant is that the learned Magistrate has after considering the evidence on record has granted maintenance to the applicant and her son at the rate of Rs. 100/ - and Rs. 50/ - per month respectively by order dated 13 -2 -1986. It is further contended that her marriage was solemnised in the year 1978 with the non -applicant. She claims to be the first wife of the non -applicant and she contended that non -applicant married Suman in the year 1984. As such, she being the first wife is entitled for the maintenance. She contended that she served a notice on the non -applicant for maintenance which was not replied by him. Hence she filed an application before J.M.F.C. under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. In the W.S. filed by the NA he denied the relationship but subsequently he filed amendment to the W.S. wherein he contended that his first wife was Suman, who was married to him in the year 1974 and Shakuntala applicant herein is his second wife. He contended that he is maintaining his first wife and he is also ready to maintain Shakuntala and his son, if they both reside with him.

(3.) WHILE coming to the conclusion, learned Magistrate has held that non -applicant failed to establish that Suman was his first wife. He further held that in the W.S. non -applicant has merely denied that Suman was his second wife but thereafter by filing amendment to W.S. he has specifically contended that Suman is his first wife and the said marriage took place in the year 1974. He has not mentioned In the W.S. that he got a child from Suman in the year 1977 but he filed a certificate to that effect and the record shows that Nanda was born to Suman in the year 1979. This aspect of documentary evidence was disbelieved by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that applicant Shakuntala and her son is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/ - and Rs. 50/ - per month respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, non -applicant filed revision before learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that non -applicant has first wife and the said marriage still subsists. He has referred to the evidence of DW 1 Vithal, who has stated that he has a daughter from Suman named Nanda alias Shobha, who also lives with him. He has further stated that he has not taken divorce from his first wife. DW 2 Kisan has also corroborated the version of Vithal. Considering the evidence of DW 1 and DW 2, learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the marriage with Suman who is his first wife being marriage in 1974 still subsists and as such Shakuntala who is the second wife is not entitled for maintenance and as such order passed by learned Magistrate granting maintenance to Shakuntala was quashed while maintenance granted in favour of child at Rs. 50/ - was upheld.