RAJENDRA DEVIDAS HIRURKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner husband has impugned the order dated 14.10.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision No. 39/91 which was filed by the respondent wife challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, dismissing her claim for maintenance.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was married to respondent No. 2 Smt. Shobha on 25.6.1988. It was the case of the respondent wife that after some days of marriage she was treated with cruelty and asked to bring money from her parents. On persuasion, the parents and the brothers paid Rs. 25,000/ - to the petitioner husband to purchase a house at Surat. At times the petitioner used to take her to Surat where he is working, there she came to know that the petitioner has illicit relations with one girl and she suspected that respondent wife is unchaste, and that she was sent back to Akola while she was pregnant. The respondent wife delivered a girl child Pallavi, thereafter the petitioner husband again made a demand of Rs. 10,000/ - from her parents and brothers; but they could only pay Rs. 5,000/ - and with the hope that the petitioner husband would give good treatment to her. Even after the demand of the petitioner husband was satisfied the respondent wife was not treated well. The petitioner husband suspected her fidelity and given threat to burn her and after snatching her all ornaments reached her to her parents; since then the respondent wife is residing with her parents. A report came to be lodged by her against the petitioner husband for having committed offence under Section 498A in which it is submitted that the petitioner husband came to be acquitted.

(3.) MRS . Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent wife submits that the order does not call for any interference for the simple reason that the respondent wife has sufficiently established that she was treated with cruelty and was harassed and on two occasions moneys came to be extracted from her parents. It is submitted that the petitioner husband also suspected her fidelity and this was enough to make out a case of cruelty against the petitioner husband who is working as a Contractor in Surat and therefore the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.