Holiram vs Yashodabai and Another

W.M. Sambre, J.—Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 11-5-1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 7/85 reversing the Judgment and Order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Gondia, the applicant has filed this criminal revision, on the ground that the applicant was ready and willing to maintain the non-applicant No. 1 and, as such, it was improper on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the non-applicant No. 1 reversing the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Trial Court.

Mrs. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the applicant never deserted the non-applicant No. 1 wife. On the other hand, she herself deserted and went away to live with her parents. She further contended that the evidence which is placed on record has not been properly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. She further contended that even the independent witnesses who were examined have deposed in favour of the applicant. In view of this, she contended that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversing the order passed by the learned Trial Court, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

The case of the non-applicant No. 1 is that she was ill-treated by the applicant. She also served notices at Exhibits : 17, 18 and 19 to the applicant-husband on 15-4-1982, 7-5-1982 and 15-7-1982 respectively. In, these notices, she had specifically alleged that the applicant-husband has forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial home and while dragging her out of the house, the applicant-husband had snatched away the sucking female child from her. She waited outside the house with an intention that she will be allowed to enter the house, but her husband did not allowed her to do so. On various occasions, she herself and her father requested the applicant to take her back, but he refused to do so. It is pertinent to note that the child of 1-1/2 years old was retained by the applicant-husband and the non-applicant No. 1 was driven out of the house. Even in a notice sent to the applicant, she had asked about the welfare of the children, but the applicant-husband refused to reply anything about the children.

The evidence of Dasaram--DW 2 and Brijlal--DW 3 was discarded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge as they were contradictory to each other. Considering all the aspects of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed and set aside and allowed maintenance to the non-applicant No. 1 wife.

Considering the above discussion and also considering the conduct of the applicant in driving the non-applicant-wife out of the house, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Add). Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 11-5-1988 granting maintenance of Rs. 200/-per month to the non-applicant-wife is liable to be sustained.

In the result, the criminal revision application No. 210 of 1988 fails and the same is dismissed. The applicant is directed to pay all dues arising out of the order dated 11-5-1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, to the non-applicant No. 1-wife, if it has not been paid so far, within a period of four months from the date of this order.