parties are governed by the Hindu Law. Both the Courts
below have recorded specific and clearcut finding that the
petitioner/husband could not establish the custom prevailing
in their caste, by which customary divorce can be given. In
absence of any custom, any document purported to be the
divorce deed, has no value in the eye of law. In that view of
the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in view of the divorce deed [Exh.29], the
application itself is not maintainable can not be accepted.
Further, the learned revisional Court has rightly observed
that the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure were filed on 22/09/1999, whereas the divorce
deed is executed on 26/09/1999. The learned trial Court, in
the light of the admission given by the husband that he got
the divorce deed executed because he wanted to perform
second marriage, rightly recorded finding that the divorce
deed got executed by the husband from the wife, can not be
relied upon. Further, once the husband failed to point out
the custom, the husband is disentitled to take any benefit
from such customary divorce deed.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 528 OF 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Gangadhar Manika Huge Vs Rekhabai Gangadhar Huge
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 9th FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)2243
Heard Mr. P.G.Godhamgaonkar, the learned
1.
counsel for the Petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1
though served.
2.
The parties will be referred to as husband and
wife for the convenience.
This Writ Petition is filed by husband against the
3.
order dated 28/06/2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Gangakhed in Criminal Misc. Application No.
25/1999, by which the learned Magistrate directed him to
pay maintenance @ ` 300/ per month to the wife from the
date of application together with Judgment and Order dated
16/11/2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2002,
dismissing his Revision.
4.
The wife filed proceedings u/s 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure against the husband. By filing the
said proceedings, the wife claimed maintenance from the
husband.
It is stated in the application u/s 125 of the
5.
Code of Criminal Procedure that the wife is legally married
with the husband and their marriage was solemnized as per
the Hindu rites. Though she was maintained properly for a
period of 2 years, subsequently the husband started giving
illtreatment to her in order to fulfill his illegal demand of
6.
chain, etc.
` 25,000/ [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only], golden
The wife was assaulted by the husband and she
was kept without food. The husband gave beating to the
wife and drove her away from the matrimonial house.
Thereafter, the wife tried to make her entry again in the
matrimonial house with the help of some common friends.
However, the said attempt of the wife also proved to be
futile.
7.
It was pointed out in her application by the wife
that the husband is agriculturist having 18 Acres of land, out
of which 5 Acres is irrigated land and he is taking cash crops
like Sugarcane and Banana. Besides that, the husband is
having 15 buffalows and used to carry milk business.
One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only] per annum.
From the same, he earns about ` 1,25,000/ [Rupees
8.
The application of maintenance of the wife was
contested by the husband. He admitted the marriage.
However, he denied the demand and illtreatment. It was
further pointed out in the Written Statement that on
26/03/1999, mutual divorce took place amongst them and
divorce deed was executed. That time he has paid
` 1,10,000/ [Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand only] to the
wife and she has relinquished her claim.
9.
The learned Magistrate, after considering the
pleadings and the evidence on record, allowed the
application filed by the wife vide Judgment dated
28/06/2002 and thereby directed that the wife is entitled to
receive maintenance @ ` 300/ [Rupees Three Hundred
only] per month from the husband.
10.
The husband was dissatisfied with the said
verdict and, therefore, he filed Revision in the Court of the
Sessions Judge at Parbhani. The learned Sessions Judge on
16/11/2002 dismissed the Revision.
Mr. Godhamgaonkar, the learned counsel for the
11.
petitioner submitted before this Court that in view of the
divorce deed dated 26/09/1999, which was duly proved and
which is at Exh. 29 on record and the proceedings filed on
behalf of the wife were not maintainable. In order to buttress
his submission, he relied upon the reported decision of this
Court in the case of Shrawan Sakharam Ubhale Vs. Durga
Shrawan Ubale and others, 1990(1) Mh.L.J. 418.
12.
It is to be noted in the present case that the
parties are governed by the Hindu Law. Both the Courts
below have recorded specific and clearcut finding that the
petitioner/husband could not establish the custom prevailing
in their caste, by which customary divorce can be given. In
absence of any custom, any document purported to be the
divorce deed, has no value in the eye of law. In that view of
the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in view of the divorce deed [Exh.29], the
application itself is not maintainable can not be accepted.
Further, the learned revisional Court has rightly observed
that the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure were filed on 22/09/1999, whereas the divorce
deed is executed on 26/09/1999. The learned trial Court, in
the light of the admission given by the husband that he got
the divorce deed executed because he wanted to perform
second marriage, rightly recorded finding that the divorce
deed got executed by the husband from the wife, can not be
relied upon. Further, once the husband failed to point out
the custom, the husband is disentitled to take any benefit
from such customary divorce deed.
13.
In that view of the matter, both the impugned
orders do not suffer from any perversity. Hence, the present
Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
[V.M.DESHPANDE, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment