LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

surya kiran (SE)     29 December 2010

Wife who can not prove cruelity does not deserve maintenance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.226 OF 2002

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale,

Age : 35 years, Occu.Service,

R/o. Mental Hospital Servant Quarters,

Yeroda,Pune District Pune - 6 ...Petitioner

Versus

Khristina w/o Sanjay Bhosale ...Respondent

.....

Mr.Gopal D.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr.N.K.Choudhari, Advocate holding for Mr.R.N.Dhorde,

Advocate for respondent

.....

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.

Date of Reserving the Judgment: 24.3.2008

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 8.4.2008

JUDGMENT

1. By this revision petition, petitioner seeks

immunity from liability to pay maintenance allowance

as per Judgment rendered in Criminal Revision

Petition No.60 of 2000, by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, to respondent. He

challenges the said Judgment reversing order of

dismissal of the respondent’s application for

maintenance passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

(First Class), Shrirampur.

- 2 -

2. It would be useful to first note the admitted

facts. The spouses belong to Christian community.

Their marriage was performed on 14.5.1998 in

accordance with tenets of Christian religion. The

petitioner is employed as Wardboy in Yerwada Mental

Hospital, at Pune. He resides in one of the

Government quarters, out of nine such quarters, which

are in one row, situated at back side of the mental

hospital. He was a divorcee when he performed

marriage with the respondent. She went to reside

with him after the marriage. His parents and two

brothers reside with him in the same residential

quarter. The marriage was shortlived. The spouses

are incompatible.

3. The respondent (wife) filed application under

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for separate maintenance

allowance. She asserted that for about six months,

she was somehow treated alright in the matrimonial

home. Thereafter, the husband started mental and

physical harassment to her at instigation of his

parents and brothers. Her in-laws used to express

dissatisfaction regarding gifts given in the

marriage. They used to abuse her. The husband

(petitioner) used to beat her in drunken condition.

He used to make unlawful demand of gold locket

- 3 -

weighing 15 gms., a T.V. set and a mixer, which she

was asked to bring from the parents. Her parents

attempted to convince and plead with her husband.

Still, however, he and his relatives continued the

unlawful demand, which her parents were unable to

meet out. He used to suspect her fedility. She

apprehended danger to her life in the matrimonial

home. He mercilessly beaten up her on 21.2.1999 and

drove her out of the matrimonial home. She lodged a

complaint at the Police Station. She is unable to

maintain herself. The husband (petitioner) has got

sufficient means to provide separate maintenance.

Consequently, she demanded separate maintenance

allowance at rate of Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five

hundred) from him.

4. By filing written statement (Exh.14), the

husband (present petitioner) denied truth into all

the material allegations made by the wife. He denied

that she was being ill-treated or harassed in the

matrimonial house. He submitted that on 5th October,

1998, maternal uncle of the respondent (wife) visited

his house and pretended that her another maternal

uncle, who is inhabitant of Ahmednagar, was seriously

ill. Lateron she went with her brother. She did not

return home after 2/3 days as per the assurance and

hence, he visited her parents’ house on 25th October

- 4 -

1998. They assured him to send her after the "Natal"

festival. Thereafter, they avoided to send her and

she refused to accompany him. He was ready and

willing to maintain her. She deserted him without

any substantial reason. He denied that she was

neglected by him. He urged, therefore, to dismiss

the application.

5. The parties went to the trial before the

learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shrirampur in the

proceedings (Criminal M.A.No.85 of 1999). The

respondent examined herself in support of her

application. The present petitioner also examined

himself and adduced evidence of two neighbours in

support of his defence. On appreciation of their

evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the

conclusion that the respondent (wife) failed to prove

that she was neglected and refused to be maintained

by the husband. The learned Magistrate held that

within a short span of five months of the marriage,

she left his company, probably because she wanted

separate residence without domestic chore in respect

of his parents and the brothers. The learned

Magistrate held that allegations of matrimonial

cruelty are invented by the respondent (wife) and

were unacceptable. In keeping with such findings,

her application was dismissed.

- 5 -

6. Feeling aggrieved, the wife preferred revision

application (Cri.Revision Petition No.60 of 2000),

which was allowed under the impugned order. The

revisional Court reversed findings of the learned

Magistrate and came to the conclusion that the

version of the wife could not be discarded in the set

of circumstances. The revisional Court awarded

maintenance allowance at rate of Rs.700/- (Rs.Seven

hundred) p.m. in her favour from date of the

application. The husband impugns Judgment rendered

by the learned Sessions Judge in the revisional

jurisdiction whereby the criminal revision petition

No.60 of 2000 was allowed.

7. Clinching question is as to whether the

findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate could be

regarded as perverse, arbitrary and patently

erroneous so as to warrant interference by the

learned Sessions Judge in the exercise of revisional

jurisdiction. It is well settled that, normally, the

revisional Court will not reappreciate the evidence.

The impugned Judgment does not show that the learned

Sessions Judge recorded finding that the appreciation

of the evidence, as done by the learned Magistrate

suffered from vice of arbitrariness, perversity or

capriciousness.

- 6 -

8. In the above background, I would briefly take

survey of the evidence tendered by the parties. PW-1

Khristina (wife) testified that after six months of

the marriage, the husband and his relatives started

giving cruel treatment to her on account of demand of

money. This part of her statement is discripant with

allegations in the pleadings. In her application,

she alleged that a gold locket, weighing 15 gms, a

T.V. set and a mixer were demanded by the husband

from her parents. There is no whisper of any such

demand throughout her oral statement before the

learned Magistrate. She stated that on 21st February

1999, the husband beaten up her and drove her out of

the house. She lodged a complaint at the Yerwada

Police Station, Pune. Her version shows that she had

written two letters and narrated her plight in the

matrimonial home to her father. Her brother used to

visit her matrimonial home. Neither of them entered

the witness box nor the letters sent by her or copy

of Police complaint lodged by her, have been placed

on record. Her real married sister, by name, Archana

resides in Yerwada locality at Pune. Her maternal

uncle resides at Akurdi, Pune. She admits that she

never informed her sister or any other relative about

the ill-treatment meted out to her at hands of the

husband and his relatives, except and save to her

- 7 -

father. This conduct of the respondent was duly

noticed by the learned Magistrate. She admitted that

on 5th October 1998, her brother and maternal uncle

visited the house of her husband to inform that her

another maternal uncle, who is inhabitant of

Ahmednagar, was suffering from illness. This

admission corroborates contention of the husband that

she was allowed to go to Ahmednagar to meet her

ailing maternal uncle.

9. The learned Magistrate also noticed that the

two neighbours, namely, DW-2 Shubhangi and DW-3

Bashid corroborated version of the husband. The

version of DW-1 Sanjay (husband) would show that

there was no ill-treatment given to the wife. He

states that on 5th October 1998, brother of the wife

and her maternal uncle visited his house and informed

that her another maternal uncle, who is inhabitant of

Ahmednagar, was suffering from illness and they

requested him to send her with them. His version

shows that he allowed them to take her away after 2/3

days. Thereafter, on 11th October 1998, her brother

took her to Ahmednagar. His version shows that he

made attempts to fetch her back but it was invain.

The version of DW-Shubhangi reveals that the

petitioner and his wife were never seen quarrelling

with each other. Her version reveals that the

- 8 -

respondent (wife) resided with the petitioner only

for five months after the marriage and he is not

addicted to any vice. There is only a middle wall

between the residential quarter of the petitioner and

DW-Shubhangi. She has no reason to speak lie nor any

tangible material is gathered during her

cross-examination. Similarly, DW-3 Bashid deposed

that after five months of the marriage, the wife left

house of the petitioner - Sanjay. In other words,

the version of petitioner - Sanjay stands

corroborated by the versions of two neighbours.

10. There is solitary and interested version of

PW-Khristina in support of her application for

separate maintenance allowance. Her version gives

inconsistent account about so-called unlawful demand.

She deviated from her pleadings. The findings of the

learned Magistrate are based on due appreciation of

the evidence. The further development may be

noticed. The petitioner filed an application for

restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at

Pune. His application (P.A.No.500 of 2002) is

allowed by the Family Court on 21st July 2003. So

far, the respondent (wife) has not challenged the

Judgment of the Family Court. The Family Court

raised a specific issue as follows :

- 9 -

" Whether the petitioner proves that the

respondent without any reasonable excuse has

withdrawn from the society ?"

. The learned Judge of the Family Court recorded

an affirmative finding on the said issue. It is

manifest, therefore, that not only the learned

Judicial Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence

tendered by the spouses, came to the conclusion that

she left his house, probably under burden of the

domestic chores, but the civil Court also found that

she is guilty of deserting him without any reasonable

excuse.

11. The impugned Judgment reveals that the learned

Sessions Judge undertook reassessment of the entire

evidence though he was supposed to exercise the

revisional jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge

did not find any particular fault in the process of

appreciation of evidence, as done by the learned

Magistrate. The relevant observations of the learned

Sessions Judge may be reproduced as follows :

"14. On carefully scrutinising the evidence

of the applicant and opponent it will reveal

that the matrimonial life of the applicant

was not smoothly going on due to some

quarrel and ultimately, it was resulted into

leaving the house of opponent, by the

applicant. Observations made by the lower

Court that the applicant had stayed for

short period in the house of the opponent

- 10 -

and therefore, there is no possibility of

ill-treatment, does not appear to be proper

and legal in the circumstances of the case.

When the applicant has positively stated

that she was subjected to ill-treatment not

only that but she has lodged complaint in

Yerwada Police Station, this will

prima-facie give rise that she was

ill-treated and, therefore, she has left the

house of the opponent. Provisions of

Sec.125 of Code of Criminal Procedure need

not require that there must be a strict

proof of cruelty".

. The above observations of the learned Sessions

Judge would indicate that he accepted version of the

wife only because she gave positive statement that

she was subjected to ill-treatment and had lodged the

complaint at Yerwada Police Station. As stated

before, there is no scintilla of evidence to show

that really she had lodged a complaint about the

matrimonial cruelty. Nor her so-called positive

statement finds support from her pleadings. In this

view of the matter, it is difficult to countenance

the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. Her mere

statement could not have been taken as gospel truth

as regards neglect and refusal of the husband to

maintain her. It is overlooked by the learned

Sessions Judge that within a short span of the

marriage, the wife left his company and no notice was

given within a reasonable time by her, seeking

restitution of the conjugal rights.

12. The Apex Court, in "Deb Narayan Halder vs.

- 11 -

Smt.Anushree Halder" 2003 (3) B Cr C 286, held that

the appellate Court or revisional Court while setting

aside findings recorded by Court below must notice

those findings and where the findings are of facts,

evidence on record must be discussed, which should

justify reversal of findings recorded by the Court

below. The Apex Court held that when the maintenance

application of the wife was rejected by the learned

Magistrate, holding that she had on her own left the

matrimonial home, the High Court was not justified in

reversing such findings recorded by the trial Court

and to grant maintenance to the wife.

13. In view of foregoing discussion, it will have

to be said that the findings of the learned

Magistrate should not have been interfered with by

the revisional Court and for the reasons, which are

recorded by it. The inferences drawn by the learned

Sessions Judge are improper and incorrect. There is

misinterpretation of the evidence by the learned

Sessions Judge. Under these circumstances, the

impugned Judgment is unsustainable and liable to be

interfered with.

14. In the result, the petition is allowed. The

impugned Judgment is set aside and the Judgment

rendered by the learned Magistrate in Criminal

- 12 -

Misc.Application No.85 of 1999 is restored. The

wife’s application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

is dismissed. However, the payment of maintenance

allowance, if any, during the intervening period, is

not refundable by her. No costs.

( V.R.KINGAONKAR )

JUDGE

(vvr/crirev226.02)



Learning

 1 Replies

Bhaskar for SOCIAL JUSTICE (Legal & Social Activist)     29 December 2010

 

 

 

Good Judgement

 

 

 

There should be equilibrium in law and justice and its should not be gender biased.

 

Today women is claiming ,maintenance whether they have any real problem with their husband or not but they are claiming it as a matter of right and it becomes business now to earn easy money. Marry the rich person , do quarrel with them and then claim maintenance and alimony. When she is not ready to co-operate and take care of her husband and family then why she should get any maintenance/alimony. IT MUST BE STOPPED AND BE GIVEN ONLY IN DESERVING CASES WHERE HUSBAND IS GUILTY AND WIFE IS INNOCENT.IT WILL SAVE THE FAMILIES.

 

It is a jungle raj and  way to become rich on others money.

 

If husband has duty to maintain her wife then wife has also duty to take care of him and give love and affection. So there should be no maintenance at all for wife's who are just trying to enrich them by using this ANDHA KANOON.

 

 

Certain suggestions to preserve families and to save them:

 

ï‚·          No maintenance till guilty is proved and if husband is ready to reconcile and bear all the expenses of wife and children if she re-joins him.

 

ï‚·          No maintenance  and alimony in the 2nd marriage if she has got it in the first divorce.

 

ï‚·          No maintenance if she can maintain her or her parents can maintain her and if husband is ready to take her back.

 

ï‚·          Compulsory mediation for avoiding long legal battle.

 

ï‚·          Law should be such that both husband and wife try to reconcile .

 

ï‚·          Law should not be favoring anyone to ensure that marriages are saved.

 

        

      Domestic violence complaint / fir should be filed within 24 hours of alleged incidence in place of today's situation in which wife and her parents try to black mail the husband and his family to agree to their terms and if they do not agree then they file case even after many years.

 

 

DV Act must be applicable equally to men and women as today women is more aggressive and ill-treat, abuse, beat husbands and in-laws but the DV Act not applicable to them. It must cover wife's and their families to ensure equality and justice.

 

 

Limits provided in the Act for filing mutual consent Divorce after 1 year separation, desertion of 2 year,3 years for IRBM etc. should be removed and it should be only 3 months so both can start their life’s afresh.  When two persons can marry without any waiting period then there should be no waiting period for separation.

 

The most important thing is to fix time limit for completion of hearing and disposal of case in any court say 6 months only. The cases must be tried on fast track basis. The infrastructure of the legislative system should be strenght4ened and cases must be disposed off within 6 months.

 

For filing cases some minimum requirement of proofs etc. must be there and it should not be like this that for any small small issue anybody can go and file the case.

 

Specially for family matters pre-litigation mediation must be compulsory and the behavior/flexibility of each party in resolving the issue must be recorded and should be base of their case in future (if any).

 

Pre-neputal agreement should be made legal so husband and wife are aware before hand what they are going to get or loose if they part there ways and they should be allowed to take divorce on the terms mentioned in the agreement without going to court. 

 

MAXIMUM LIMIT OF MAINTENANCE AMOUNT BE FIXED IN THE ACT ITSELF TO STOP ITS MIS-USE

 

THERE MUST BE STRICT PENAL PROVISIONS FOR PETITIONER AND ADVOCATES FOR FILING FALSE CASES.IT WILL REDUCE LARGE NUMBER OF FALSE CASES. AS PER STATATICS 95% DOWRY/ DOMESTIC VIOLANCE CASES ARE FALSE.ONCE JUDGES START PUNISHING THOSE INVOLVED IN SUCH CASES THERE WILL BE SEA CHANGE.

 

Dowry law, Hindu Marriage law, Domestic violence Act etc. must be made equal for both husband and wife. Lacs of husband are suiciding because of these biased laws.

 

 

FILE  REPRESENTATION BEFORE COMMITTE OF PETITIONS OF RAJYA SABHA FOR CHANGE OF 498a TO STOP ITS MISUSE BEFORE 30.12.2010

 

If husband has a duty to maintain his wife then he must have some rights also and if wife has right of maintenance then she must have some duties also.

 

The government of India who has enacted this type of illogical law has on its own part giving this type of maintenance/allowance etc. to citizens of India if they don’t have any earning/job etc. NO not at all.

 

In NAREGA they are just giving guarantee of work for 100 days and wages for the days worked so this should also be applicable to husband and wife also.

 

This blackmailing by wife's must be stopped forthwith.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register