IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.K. Jadhav, J.
Musthtaq Noormaohammad Shaikh - Petitioner
Versus
Ayesha @ Nagama Mushtaq Shaikh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 490 of 2015
Decided On : 18-10-2016
So far as the grant of maintenance by the Magistrate to the respondent No. 1 wife at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month each to the children, is concerned, it appears from the cross-examination of the petitioner-husband that he is driver by occupation and he is having permanent driving licence to drive the four-wheeler. The petitioner has also admitted in his cross-examination that he is serving with one `D` and his brother is serving in one mill there. He has further admitted that the respondent No. 1-wife has no independent source of income and she is not able to maintain herself and her children. Respondent No. 1 wife has also deposed that the petitioner had purchased two cars in the name of his friends and is getting income of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per day from the said vehicle. It is further stated that the petitioner-husband had independent bungalow at Belapur. Thus, considering the evidence of the respondent No. 1-wife and the petitioner, the Magistrate has rightly decided the quantum of maintenance. Court does not find any fault in the said order of maintenance, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month each to the children.
V.K. Jadhav, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties at the admission stage.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahata dated 25/3/2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17 of 2012 and the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon dated 22/1/2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2014, confirming thereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the original non-applicant no.1/husband has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition, are as follows :-
Respondent no.1-wife got married with the petitioner on 25/10/2009. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the children born to them out of the marital relations. However, respondent no.1 was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of the unlawful demand of Rs.1,50,000/- for purchasing a car by the petitioner and others.
On 6/11/2011, she was driven from the house by the petitioner for non-fulfilment of the said demand of Rs.1.50 Lakh for purchase of car. She was subjected to various forms of cruelty, as detailed in the application filed before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "Domestic Violence Act"). It has also alleged in the application filed before the Magistrate that on 13/11/2011, the petitioner had been to her parent's house and took the respondent no.1-wife and the children on his motorcycle for returning to his house. On way, he found that the respondent no.1-wife has not fulfilled his demand of Rs.1.50 Lakh for purchasing the car. Thus, he pushed the respondent no.1-wife from the running motorcycle and she was in fact dragged behind the motorcycle for certain distance because of the clothes on her person entangled in the motorcycle. Even the respondent no.1-wife has filed complaint against the petitioner for the said incident and accordingly the crime came to be registered for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted and the said case is pending before the Sessions Court.
Respondent no.1-wife along with her children filed an application before the Magistrate seeking various reliefs under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. It has stated in the application that the petitioner is a driver by occupation having 45 cars at his disposal and he earns Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per day. It has also alleged that the other non-applicants earns from different occupation and earns Rs.2000/- per day. It has also alleged that respondent no.1-wife was subjected to cruelty by the non-applicants for various reasons including the non-fulfilment of the said unlawful demand.
The petitioner denied all the allegations made in the said application. According to the petitioner and the other non-applicants, the respondent no.1-wife was never subjected to any mental or physical cruelty and she has suomotu started to reside in her parent's house. It has also contended that on way to the house of the petitioner, the motorcycle being driven by the petitioner met with an accident and, therefore, the respondent no.1-wife sustained the injuries. Even the petitioner, after the said accident, took respondent no.1 to the hospital and he incurred the entire medical expenses. He was taking care of respondent no.1-wife and his children, however, the respondent no.1-wife, without any just cause, started residing with her parents along with the children. It has also contended that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and the petitioner had to incur huge expenses for her treatment. He has no independent source of income and thus he is unable to pay the maintenance as well as the compensation claimed by the respondent no.1-wife.
The respondent no.1-wife and the petitioner adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.