Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 89
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
Jyoti & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Tukaram – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 227 of 2002
Decided on: 04-02-2015
For the Applicants:A.D. Aghav, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Avinash Patil h/f S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocates.
The judgment establishes that unproven serious allegations by a spouse can constitute mental cruelty, justifying the other spouse's departure from the matrimonial home. It also reaffirms the obligation of an able-bodied spouse with means to provide maintenance to their dependents.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125
Fact of the Case:
The wife and son filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging cruelty and non-provision of maintenance by the husband. The Family Court dismissed the petition, citing the wife's alleged misconduct and parting of company without cause.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband's allegations of the wife's misconduct were not proven and that the wife's departure from the matrimonial home was justified due to the administration of poison and fear for her safety. The court also held that the husband, being an able-bodied person with means, was obligated to provide maintenance to his wife and son.
Issues: The main issues were the alleged cruelty by the husband, the validity of the wife's departure from the matrimonial home, and the husband's obligation to provide maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that serious allegations made by the husband, which remained unproven, constituted mental cruelty. It also held that the wife's departure from the matrimonial home due to fear for her safety was justified. Additionally, the court found the husband obligated to provide maintenance based on his means and the wife's dependency.
Final Decision: The Revision Application was allowed, the Family Court's judgment was quashed, and the petition for maintenance was allowed. The non-applicant was directed to pay maintenance to the applicants from the date of filing the petition.
1. Challenge in the present Revision Application is to the Judgment and Order dated 20/08/2002 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E-395/2001, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the Petition filed on behalf of the present applicants for maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard Mr. A.D.Aghav, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Avinash Patil holding for Mr. S.P.Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The present applicants are the wife and son of the respondent. Their relations are not denied.
4. On 18/06/2001, the present applicants approached to the Family Court with an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their application was registered as Petition No. E-395/2001. The marriage between the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 21/05/1998. From their wedlock, the applicant No. 2 was borne and at the time of filing of the said application, the age of applicant No. 2 was 1 years. They shall be referred hereinafter as per their position in the application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed before the Court below.
5. It was stated by the applicants in the application that though for first few months, the applicant No. 1 was treated nicely, illegal demands were made by the non applicant and on non fulfillment of such illegal demand, she was subjected to cruelty. She was physically tortured by the non-applicant.
6. In paragraph No. 4 of the application, it has been specifically asserted by the applicant No. 1 that the non-applicant used to raise suspicion over her character and used to beat her on that count. Once she was administered poison by the non-applicant with an intention to kill her. The applicant No. 1 was admitted in hospital. The cognizance of the said matter was taken by the police and the offence was registered against the non-applicant. It was further stated in her application that the non-applicant is working as Clerk in Govt. Dental Medical College at Aurangabad and he was having monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-. It was further stated that the non-applicant was also having agricultural land in Gangapur Taluka and was getting handsome income from the said agricultural land.
7. Due to the ill-treatment, the applicant No. 1 was required to take shelter to her father's house. The applicant No. 2 was with her. No attempts were made by the non-applicant to provide maintenance to them. They were solely dependent on the income of applicant No. 1's father. It was further stated that the applicant No. 1 was not having any means of income. Therefore, she claim Rs. 1,500/- [Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only] per month for each of them in the said Petition.
8. On being summoned, the non-applicant appeared before the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court and filed his Written Statement. The Written Statement is at Exh. 5 on record. The sum and substance of the Written Statement is that the applicant No. 1 was never subjected to cruelty as alleged by the applicants. It was stated that the applicant No. 1 was the only child of her father and, therefore, she was unable to cohabit with her husband in joint family. It was further asserted in the Written Statement that she is in love with one Sanjay Garjekar, who is working in cinema theatre. It was further asserted in the Written Statement that on 14/02/2001, the applicant No. 1 came to the house in the night at late hours chewing Gootkha and upon enquiry, she disclosed that she had been to cinema theatre for movie. That time, the husband raised suspicion and searched in her purse, wherein some love letters were found. Thereafter, according to the non-applicant, she herself has consumed poison and she was admitted in the hospital.
9. Both the applicant No. 1 as well as the non-applicant entered into witness box. The learned trial Court rejected the claim of the applicants on the ground that it is th
