VIJAY MOTIRAM AWARKAR Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 196/87 dated 15-3-1989, by the Sessions Judge, Akola, dismissing the revision arising out the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, dated 22-5-1987 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 5/86, the applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE main contention of the applicant is that he was married with the non-applicant No. 1 on 8-3- 1985. She stayed for a day with him and thereafter left for her parental house. After 4-5 months, she came back to the applicant, when it was found that she was carrying. She was accordingly accosted about that by the applicant Thereafter, on 24-7-1985, this non-applicant No. 1 executed a divorce deed in favour of the applicant stating therein that she was carrying from some other person. Subsequently, she delivered a child on 2-10-1985. The applicant contended that this child born to the non-applicant No. 1 was born to her before seven months from the date of his marriage. As such, he was not the author or father of the said child and this position was also admitted by the non-applicant No. 1 while executing the divorce deed on 24-7-1985. Inspite of this position, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 50/- to the non-applicant No. 2. Against this Order passed by the learned Magistrate, a revision came to be filed before the Sessions Judge, who vide order dated 15-3-1989 maintained the Order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Order of the learned Sessions Judge is under challenge in this criminal application.

(3.) MR. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that even after admitting the position that this applicant is not the author of the child born to the non-applicant No. 1, he is made liable to pay the maintenance to the child. Moreover, the non-applicant has deserted his company and that she was with him only for a day. Even the non-applicant No. 1, had executed the divorce deed, which is the custom in their caste for taking divorce.