ANIL DATTATRAYA LAD Vs. SUMITRA ANIL LAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application is filed by the petitioner/original Respondent/husband Anil Dattatraya Lad, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 17th May, 1993, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pune, allowing the application made by the original Petitioner/sumitra for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also directing the Respondent/husband to pay costs of Rs. 100/- to her.

(2.) FEW facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows : It is the case of the original petitioner/sumitra that her marriage with the Respondent/anil Dattatraya Lad took place in the year 1989 at Pune as per Buddhist rites. There is no issue out of the wedlock. After the marriage, initially for few days, the Respondent/husband treated her property, but thereafter he started ill-treating and harassing her. He had a habit of drinking liquor. He used to assault her under the influence of liquor and used to demand money. He used to assault her on the ground that she had no issue and used to demand permission for marrying for the second time. When she used to refuse, he used to assault her. It is averred by the petitioner/wife that on 22nd May, 1992 in the evening her husband Anil assaulted her and drove her out of the house. She filed complaint at Laxmipuri Police Station, Kolhapur. She tried to go back to her husband's house, but the Respondent/husband assaulted her and, therefore, her father took her to her maternal aunt's house and that thereafter she was residing at her parents' house. She made several efforts for reconciliation through Stri Adhar Kendra, but that the Respondent/husband did not pay any heed. The petitioner/wife has averred that she has no source of income, as against this, the Respondent/husband is a Ward Boy in the Government Hospital, Kolhapur and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is further averred that he has no dependents and, therefore, he has capacity to pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.

(3.) IT is contended, inter alia, by the Petitioner/original Respondent/husband that when there was no sufficient material to prove that he used to assault the Respondent/original Petitioner/wife, it was an error on the part of the lower Court to hold otherwise. He further averred that he is ready and willing to bring her back. He has further averred that to hold that denial of marriage amounted to cruelty is erroneous on the part of the Family Court Judge. On the quantum also the petitioner/husband further averred that it ought to have been considered that the Respondent/wife was earning an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month. IT is, therefore, prayed by the petitioner/husband that the impugned Judgment and Order of the Family Court dated 17th May, 1993 be quashed and set aside.