Merely because the wife has not raised any claim for a long period that does not mean that she can be denied maintenance now, when she is claiming the same. That apart, the petitioner has not led any evidence or material to show that the respondent wife is earning something and is able to maintain herself.
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy for the petitioner. Shri Madan Singh for the respondent.
Challenging the concurrent orders passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hata, District Damoh in Criminal Case No. 44/2010, granting maintenance to the respondent wife and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, this application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner and respondent were married and on the ground that the petitioner has refused to maintain her, proceedings were initiated by the respondent wife under section 125 CrPC and the Court has granted maintenance of `600/- per month alongwith certain expenses. Challenging the same a revision was filed and by a detailed order-dated 23.9.2011, the learned District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision and, therefore, this petition. It was canvassed by Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent wife has left the house of her husband 34-35 years back, she has refused to live with him and now filing of application maintenance after such a long with was not proper.
Accordingly, on the ground of inordinate delay caused by the wife in initiating proceedings, prayer made is that the application be dismissed. That apart, it is argued that the wife is able to maintain herself and, therefore, the application should be dismissed. Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, refuted the aforesaid and argued that immediately after marriage and after 3-4 years the petitioner started living with one Kamla Bai, he married this lady in an illegal manner and, therefore, the respondent wife had to live separately. That apart, it is argued by Shri Madan Singh that concurrent findings recorded by the trial
court and the revisional court in the matter is based on evidence and material that came on record and the same does not call for any interference.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court, it is clear that the petitioner has refused to maintain respondent/wife, he is staying with one Kamla Bai and, therefore, the maintenance was ordered. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below does not call for any interference on the grounds canvassed in this writ petition. Merely because the wife has not raised any claim for a long period that does not mean that she can be denied maintenance now, when she is claiming the same. That apart, the petitioner has not led any evidence or material to show that the respondent wife is earning something and is able to maintain herself.
Both the courts have recorded a concurrent finding based on due appreciation of the material and evidence that came on record and no case is made for interference into such a reasonable finding arrived at exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction in an application under section 482 CrPC.
Accordingly, finding no ground, the application stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE
Aks/-
Print Page
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsiram Sahu vs Mangi Bai on 18 April, 2013
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy for the petitioner. Shri Madan Singh for the respondent.
Challenging the concurrent orders passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hata, District Damoh in Criminal Case No. 44/2010, granting maintenance to the respondent wife and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, this application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner and respondent were married and on the ground that the petitioner has refused to maintain her, proceedings were initiated by the respondent wife under section 125 CrPC and the Court has granted maintenance of `600/- per month alongwith certain expenses. Challenging the same a revision was filed and by a detailed order-dated 23.9.2011, the learned District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision and, therefore, this petition. It was canvassed by Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent wife has left the house of her husband 34-35 years back, she has refused to live with him and now filing of application maintenance after such a long with was not proper.
Accordingly, on the ground of inordinate delay caused by the wife in initiating proceedings, prayer made is that the application be dismissed. That apart, it is argued that the wife is able to maintain herself and, therefore, the application should be dismissed. Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, refuted the aforesaid and argued that immediately after marriage and after 3-4 years the petitioner started living with one Kamla Bai, he married this lady in an illegal manner and, therefore, the respondent wife had to live separately. That apart, it is argued by Shri Madan Singh that concurrent findings recorded by the trial
court and the revisional court in the matter is based on evidence and material that came on record and the same does not call for any interference.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court, it is clear that the petitioner has refused to maintain respondent/wife, he is staying with one Kamla Bai and, therefore, the maintenance was ordered. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below does not call for any interference on the grounds canvassed in this writ petition. Merely because the wife has not raised any claim for a long period that does not mean that she can be denied maintenance now, when she is claiming the same. That apart, the petitioner has not led any evidence or material to show that the respondent wife is earning something and is able to maintain herself.
Both the courts have recorded a concurrent finding based on due appreciation of the material and evidence that came on record and no case is made for interference into such a reasonable finding arrived at exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction in an application under section 482 CrPC.
Accordingly, finding no ground, the application stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE
Aks/-
No comments:
Post a Comment