The wedding card is placed on record. It is at Exh.39. The said card shows that marriage between Sangita d/o Vitthal Trimbake and Suryakant S/o Ganpat Khandare is performed on 25/06/1988. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 is daughter of Vitthal Mansiram Trimbake. The evidence of P.W. No. 2 Ambadas and P.W. No. 3 Bapu show that they attended the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Their evidence further reveals that they were called to attend marriage by the present petitioner. One of the most piercing argument, which is advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to respondent No. 1, the Priest, who performed their marriage is one Vishwanath Shankar Nande. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said claim of respondent No. 1 has to be rejected on the face of Exh.56, the death certificate issued by Pune Municipal Corporation, which shows that Vishwanath Shankar Nande has died on 03/02/1986. Taking the clue from that date, learned counsel strenuously urged that the assertion on the part of respondent No. 1 that their marriage took place in the year 1988, is nothing but a falsehood. At the first blush, the argument is most appeallable, however, on the closure scrutiny, the Court has no option but to reject the said submission made by the learned counsel.
In the cross examination, a suggestion is given that Vishwanath Nande is dead. However, the said suggestion was denied by respondent No. 1. Very fairly, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that Exh.56, the death certificate of one Vishwanath Nande was not confronted by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 when she was under cross examination. Since opportunity was not given to respondent No. 1 to place her view on the death certificate issued by Pune Municipal Corporation in respect of Vishwanath Nande. Further, there is no specific evidence brought on record that in the village Rashin, there was only one Vishwanath Nande. Further, the death certificate Exh.56 shows that permanent address of the person named in the said death certificate is at Bhimnagar, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. Therefore, it is really difficult to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner about the death of the priest and that the said priest did not perform the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.301 OF 2001
Suryakant Ganpat Khandare,
VERSUS
Sangita Suryakant Khandare,
( CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.)
DATE : 17/07/2014
Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)1077
By the present writ petition, exception is taken to the judgment
and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Karjat dated 11/08/2000 in Cri.Misc.Application No.384/1997
together with judgment and order passed by the learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision
No.174/2000, by which the learned Revisional Court dismissed the
revision and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate in
granting maintenance of Rs.375/ per month in favour of present
I heard Mr.A.B.Gatne, learned counsel for the petitioner,
2.
respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S.Wagh h/f Mr.S.T.Shelke for respondent No.1 and
Mr.V.H.Dighe, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.2/State. With the assistance of learned counsels, I
have gone through the impugned judgments. The learned counsels
also took me through the record and proceedings, which was called
by this Court at the time of the admission of the present writ petition
on 08/07/2003.
3.
On 04/12/1997, present respondent No.1 / wife filed an
application in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Karjat u/s 125 of the
Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The said application was registered
as Misc.Criminal Application No.384/1997.
The facts which are asserted in the said application filed by
respondent No.2 are that : In the year 1988, marriage between her
and the present petitioner took place at village Rashin, Tal. Karjat.
For a period of one year, she was given good treatment by the
petitioner / husband. However, subsequently respondent No.1 was
subjected to illtreatment at the hands of the petitioner on account
that sufficient dowry was not given to him in the marriage. There
was a consistent demand of Rs.15,000/ from the petitioner. Since
respondent No.1 was unable to meet the illegal demand of the
petitioner, she was subjected to both metal and physical cruelty.
Many a time, she was put on starvation The application further
reveals that in the year 1989, petitioner performed his second
marriage with one Usha and said lady was brought in the
matrimonial house. Still, respondent No.1 was cohabiting with the
petitioner. However, upon instigation from second wife Usha, the
illtreatment was escalated and ultimately she was driven out by the
petitioner from her matrimonial house.
It is further asserted in the application by respondent No.1 that
since there was no mean to sustain herself and in view of the fact
that the petitioner is able to maintain his wife, she filed the
proceeding for maintenance of Rs.500/ per month from the
petitioner. In the application, a specific statement was made by
respondent No.1 that the petitioner hails from well to do family and
he possesses 2530 acres of irrigated land, having two pakka
constructed wells.
On being summoned, the petitioner put his appearance and
4.
Criminal Writ Petition No.301 of 2001
filed his written statement. The written statement is at Exhibit 8 on
the record of the proceedings. The very basic assertion made on
behalf of respondent No.1 that the relationship of husband and wife
between them was specifically denied by the petitioner. According to
the written statement, at no point of time, there was any marriage
between them and Usha is his legally wedded wife. A passing
sentence is made in the written statement that the petitioner is a
poor person and there is no mean available to him for his livelihood.
Both the parties entered into the witness box in order to
5.
substantiate their claims. Certain documents were also proved
during the trial by the respective parties.
6.
The learned J.M.F.C. Karjat, after appreciation of the evidence,
recorded a finding that the present respondent No.1 is legally wedded
wife of the present petitioner. On appreciation of the available
material, he further reached to the conclusion that respondent No.1
has proved before the Court that the petitioner is having sufficient
means to maintain her and that for no valid reason, the petitioner
has neglected to maintain her. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate,
on the available material, fixed the quantum of maintenance to the
extent of Rs.375/ per month and also granted Rs.250/ by way of
7.
costs of the petition.
Being dissatisfied with the verdict that was handed down to
the petitioner, the petitioner approached before the Sessions Court by
filing a criminal revision. The said revision was registered as
Criminal Revision No.174/2000. The learned 3 rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Ahmednagar, after hearing the parties to the revision, vide
judgment and order dated 13/06/2001, recorded a finding that there
is no illegality or any error in the order passed by the learned
Magistrate in granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.375/ per
month in favour of respondent No.1 and therefore he dismissed the
revision.
Though the scope of the writ petition filed under Article 227 of
8.
the Constitution of India is limited unless and until it is shown that
any perversity is crept in the order passed by the Courts below.
Normally this Court will be very slow in exercising the said discretion
available with this Court. However, since the basic aspect of
marriage is denied by the present petitioner and since the learned
counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before me that from the
record, it is clear that respondent No.1 has utterly failed to prove her
marriage with the petitioner, I, with the assistance of the learned
counsels for the parties, have gone through the record and
9.
proceedings before the Courts below.
Respondent No.1 entered into the witness box. She also
examined one Ambadas Pachpute and one Bapu Gangaram. As
against this, petitioner, in addition to his own evidence, adduced the
10.
evidence of one Vitthal Trimbake and one Ashok Mehta.
The wedding card is placed on record. It is at Exh.39. The
said card shows that marriage between Sangita d/o Vitthal Trimbake
and Suryakant S/o Ganpat Khandare is performed on 25/06/1988.
There is no dispute that respondent No.1 is daughter of Vitthal
Mansiram Trimbake. The evidence of P.W.No.2 Ambadas and
P.W.No.3 Bapu show that they attended the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent No.1. Their evidence further reveals that
they were called to attend marriage by the present petitioner. One of
the most piercing argument, which is advanced before this Court by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to respondent
No.1, the Priest, who performed their marriage is one Vishwanath
Shankar Nande. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the said claim of respondent No.1 has to be rejected on the face
of Exh.56, the death certificate issued by Pune Municipal
Corporation, which shows that Vishwanath Shankar Nande has died
on 03/02/1986. Taking the clue from that date, learned counsel
strenuously urged that the assertion on the part of respondent No.1
that their marriage took place in the year 1988, is nothing but a
falsehood. At the first blush, the argument is most appeallable,
however, on the closure scrutiny, the Court has no option but to
reject the said submission made by the learned counsel.
In the cross examination, a suggestion is given that
Vishwanath Nande is dead. However, the said suggestion was denied
by respondent No.1. Very fairly, learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that Exh.56, the death certificate of one Vishwanath
Nande was not confronted by the petitioner to respondent No.1 when
she was under cross examination. Since opportunity was not given
to respondent No.1 to place her view on the death certificate issued
by Pune Municipal Corporation in respect of Vishwanath Nande.
Further, there is no specific evidence brought on record that in the
villge Rashin, there was only one Vishwanath Nande. Further, the
death certificate Exh.56 shows that permanent address of the person
named in the said death certificate is at Bhimnagar, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune. Therefore, it is really difficult to accept the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner about the death of the priest
and that the said priest did not perform the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent No.1.
Exh.27 is the 7/12 extract of the agricultural field bearing Gat
11.
Criminal Writ Petition No.301 of 2001
No.413, area 7 hectres and 56 R. In coloumn No.7, the name of the
petitioner is appearing in view of the mutation entry no.457.
Further it shows that the land is irrigated one. This particular
document belies the assertion made on the part of the petitioner in
12.
the written statement that he has no means for his own livelihood.
Both the Courts below has correctly evaluated the afore
mentioned evidence brought on record by the parties. True it is that
the learned Revisional Court has influenced by a thought that no
lady will unnecessarily claim that a person is her husband. May be
such approach on the part of the learned Revisional Court is casual
one, however, this Court is unable to find any fault with the ultimate
finding recorded by the Revisional Court. Hence, I see no reason to
upset the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate in favour of
present respondent No.1. Further it will be too harsh to exercise
extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner looking to
the meager amount of maintenance of Rs.375/ granted in favour of
respondent No.1. Upshot off the aforesaid discussion, leads me to
pass following order.
The writ petition is dismissed with costs and the costs is
quantified at Rs.1,000/ (Rs.One thousand only).
The interim stay granted by this Court in the year 2001 stands
vacated. Rule discharged.
( V.M.DESHPANDE, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment