CHHAGAN LAL DEVMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and Order dated 3-12-1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, akola in Criminal Revision No. 213/85 reversing the order of J. M. F. C. in Misc. Criminal Case no. 7/85, applicant has filed this revision.

(2.) IT is the case of the applicant that the non-applicant No. 2 was residing with the applicant for 4 years and thereafter she herself suo-moto deserted him. Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the non-applicant No. 2 Ashabai was a lady of bad character. She was having illicit relation with one Dilip. He has contended that for four years they were having good relations. Two children were born to them and thereafter when she was pregnant for four months, she was assaulted by the applicant and he tried to pour kerosene on her person. This was the reason that she went to her father. It is contended that the applicant was annoyed by the conduct of the N. A. No. 2 as he saw that children were crying at home and Asha had been to the house of dilip, which is adjacent to his house. When he accoster her, she replied arrogantly that the applicant should not put this question. On this, applicant gave 3/4 slaps to Asha and tried to pour keresene on her person, which was witnessed by Purnibai, mother of Dilip, who was the next door neighbour.

(3.) THE counsel for the applicant has contended that this conduct of Asha was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that Asha is a lady of bad character. She herself has deserted her husband. She is living in adultery and as such he declined to grant her maintenance. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the child born to Asha at her parents' house was that of Chhaganlal. It is pertinent to note that she was driven away in the month of May, 83 by the applicant when she was pregnant for four mouths, Thereafter she stated that her parents waited for a year and served a notice on the applicant to pay her maintenance. After receipt of the said notice, applicant filed a case for divorce. The learned Magistrate has further held that the child which was born to Asha is only entitled to the maintenance of Rs. 50/ -. He discussed the evidence of all the witnesses and further held on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 Trivenibai that the wife of applicant was of bad character. Trivenibai was residing with the applicant who was his cousin sister. She always charged Asha and tried to harass her. AW 2 Prayanbai who is also her neighbour has stated that she bad been to the house of the applicant and Trivenibai told her that Asha is a lady of bad character and is having illicit relation with Dilip. In her cross-examination, she has stated that when she entered the house of the applicant, it was found that Asha was unconscious. She has stated that she did not see the incident of beating. It has also come on record that Pranayabai who is the mother of Dilip and applicant is cousin brother of her son Dilip. She has also stated that dilip was on talking terms. The learned Magistrate has observed that she has also admitted that she had told once to the applicant about the illicit relation of non-applicant No. 2 with Dilip. This observation of the learned Magistrate are verified from the evidence of Pranayabai and it was found that no such statement has been made by Pranayabai that Asha was having illicit relation with Dilip. This shows that the learned Magistrate has not properly applied his mind to the evidence on record while coming to the conclusion and delivered the Judgment. The learned magistrate has held that she was living in adultery when in fact there is no evidence to that effect. All these observations made by the learned Magistrate has been rightly discarded by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the appreciation of evidence. The learned Magistrate has distorted the version of the witnesses to arrive at a wrong conclusion with a specific intention to deprive the lady for grant of maintenance.