Prashant Mallikarjun Mendhapoorkar vs Sou. Pragati Prashant Mendhapoorkar and Others

Pratibha Upasani, J.—This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/husband, being aggrieved by the order dated 9th July, 1993 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 228 of 1992, dismissing the said revision. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, whereby he allowed the application of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and ordered the petitioner/husband to pay Rs. 350/- per month to original applicant No. 1-Pragati and Rs. 150/- per month to applicant No. 2-Kumari Kalyani from the date of the application dated 12th July, 1991.

Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :

It is an admitted position that the original applicant No. 1-Pragati and respondent No. 1 -Prashant are husband and wife. It is also an admitted position that Kumari Kalyani is their daughter born out of the said wedlock. The parties got married in the year 1980 and cohabited together till the end of the year 1988. The case of the applicant No. 1-Pragati is that initially the respondent gave her good treatment, but subsequently, he used to beat her and used to make unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/- and five tolas of gold, which neither the said wife Pragati, nor her father Siddheshwar could fulfill. It is also contended by applicant No. 1-Pragati that her husband used to consume liquor and used to beat her under the influence of alcohol. Again and again, he used to demand a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, and two rooms for their residence. This went on for quite sometime. Then Prashant admittedly left Pragati at her parents'' place, and admittedly never paid a single paisa towards the maintenance to his wife and the child. Pragati, therefore, filed application u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 446 of 1991 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur, who, after recording evidence and after hearing both the sides, ordered Prashant to pay Rs. 350/- per month to Pragati and Rs. 1.50/- per month towards the maintenance of the child Kalyani, from the date of the application, i.e. from 12th July, 1991.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, revision came to be filed by the husband Prashant in the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge at Solapur, who, by his well-reasoned judgment dated 9th July, 1993, dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order of the lower Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband Prashant is now before this Court.

4.1 have heard Mr. Surel Shah, appearing for the petitioner-husband and Mr. Katikar, appearing respondents 1 and 2. I have heard Mr. Salvi, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. I have also perused the proceedings. Admittedly, the husband has not paid a single paisa towards the maintenance of his wife and child. In fact, he has remarried and has issues from his Second wife. In fact, this is all the more reason for the wife to reside separately and ask for maintenance. That apart, the admitted position remains that nothing has been paid by the husband to the wife and the school-going child right from her birth, towards their maintenance. The husband is working in a Primary School at Solapur and is earning Rs. 400/- per ''month by way of salary. However, it appears that his salary is not the only source of livelihood for the husband. It has come on record that there is a family business of printing press, which is run by the family. The husband has failed to prove that he is separated from his family or there is any partition effected. Admittedly, he is the only son of his parents. Therefore, the income from the printing press will have to be taken into account, though the husband is harping only on his salary which he is getting from the Saraswati School, In fact, it has to be stated that the main income is from the printing press and the salary of Rs. 400/- per month, which the husband is getting, is an additional income.

Having gone through both the judgments of the lower Courts, I do not find any infirmity in them. There is a concurrent finding of fact given by both the lower Courts, which should not be interfered with, by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition has got no substance and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :

Writ Petition No. 1141 of 1993 is dismissed. Rule discharged.

Petitioner-husband to clear the entire arrears of maintenance as ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur in his judgment and order dated 3rd September, 1992 within a period of four months from today. He should continue to pay the maintenance to his wife Pragati and daughter Kalyani on or before 10th day of every month, till Kalyani attains majority.

Parties to act on the ordinary copy of the judgment, duly authenticated by the Court Associate.

Issuance of certified copy is expedited.