The said sale deed is not executed by husband Shivaji,
however, it was executed by one Tukaram Sakharam Hiwale.
Further, there is nothing available on record to show that the
wife is in actual physical possession of the said land and she
is cultivating the same. The husband was under boundand
duty to prove the said fact. In absence of any positive
evidence in that behalf, the just right of the wife to claim
maintenance can not be defeated on the basis of the sale
deed which was not executed by husband. Further, the
claim of maintenance of son can not be defeated by entering
into compromise with the wife.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 302 OF 2002
Shivaji S/o Sayaji Hivale
V E R S U S
Sakhubai W/o Shivaji Hiwale
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12th FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2241
1. The present Revision Application is directed
against the Judgment and Order dated 11/08/2002 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in
Petition No. E454/
2001, whereby the learned Principal
Judge of the Family Court allowed the Petition filed by
present non applicant Nos. 1 and 2 partly and directed that
the applicant shall pay the maintenance @ ` 700/[
Rupees
Seven Hundred only] per month from the date of the
application to the non applicant No. 1 and ` 500/[
Rupees
Five Hundred only] per month to the non applicant No. 2
from the date of the application together with the payment of
costs of ` 500/[
Rupees Five Hundred only].
2. Heard Mr. K.P.Phatake holding for Mr.
D.P.Palodkar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.
M.M.Joshi, the learned counsel for non applicant Nos. 1 and
2/wife and son.
The parties will be referred hereinafter as
husband, wife and son for the sake of convenience.
3. The relation between the parties as husband,
wife and son is not in dispute. On 30/06/2001, wife and
minor son was required to approach to the Family Court for
their due right of maintenance from husband.
The marriage took place prior to 13 years at
village Lihakhedi. The petition for maintenance states that
for a period of one year, wife was treated with due respect,
however, subsequently, she was subjected to all sorts of
abuses at the hands of husband and her inlaws.
The said
atrocities were disclosed by wife to her father, however, she
was given understanding to her that in the matrimonial life,
such thing do take place.
Even at the time of pregnancy, the illtreatment
continued and she was sent to her parental house. That time
also, her parents prevailed upon wife and she returned to her
matrimonial house.
4. On 10/07/1998, the wife along with son was
driven out of the matrimonial house and since then they are
residing in the parental house of wife.
5. It was stated that the petition for maintenance
was filed on 20/09/1998 by them vide Petition No.
614/1998. The said petition was compromised and in
pursuance to the said compromise, from 12/11/1999 wife
and son started residing with the husband.
The husband, however, after the lapse of one
month, again continued his old habit of illtreatment. It was
pointed out that husband has established illicit relations with
one Kantabai Shirsath and on her instigation, the wife was
subjected to all sorts of atrocities. On 21/05/2000, she was
again driven out.
6. On hearing and from perusal, it is clear that prior
to filing of the present petition for maintenance, on 2
occasions, she was required to file petition for maintenance.
Out of that, one was compromised and one was dismissed for
want of prosecution as she was absent.
7. The learned Principal Judge of the Family Court
has considered the history of the previous filing of
maintenance cases. The learned court also considered the
contention on behalf of the husband that in lieu of the
compromise, sale deed was executed in her favour in respect
of 0.40 R.
The learned counsel for the applicant before this
Court also reiterated that since the sale deed was executed,
the wife is having sufficient means for her maintenance.
8. It is to be noted that the xerox copy of the sale
deed is placed on record along with list of documents [Exh.
7]. The said sale deed is not executed by husband Shivaji,
however, it was executed by one Tukaram Sakharam Hiwale.
Further, there is nothing available on record to show that the
wife is in actual physical possession of the said land and she
is cultivating the same. The husband was under boundand
duty to prove the said fact. In absence of any positive
evidence in that behalf, the just right of the wife to claim
maintenance can not be defeated on the basis of the sale
deed which was not executed by husband. Further, the
claim of maintenance of son can not be defeated by entering
into compromise with the wife.
9. The learned Principal Judge of the Family Court,
on evaluation of the evidence, found that the husband was
responsible for the neglect of wife and son. Further, from
the available evidence, according to the learned Principal
Judge of the Family Court, husband is having sufficient
means to provide maintenance. In my view, the learned
Principal Judge of the Family Court has not committed any
mistake in reaching to the quantum. The evaluation of the
record shows that there is no perversity or any error in the
impugned Judgment warranting interference by this Court.
10. Hence, the present Revision Application is
dismissed.
[V.M.DESHPANDE, J.]
Print Page
however, it was executed by one Tukaram Sakharam Hiwale.
Further, there is nothing available on record to show that the
wife is in actual physical possession of the said land and she
is cultivating the same. The husband was under boundand
duty to prove the said fact. In absence of any positive
evidence in that behalf, the just right of the wife to claim
maintenance can not be defeated on the basis of the sale
deed which was not executed by husband. Further, the
claim of maintenance of son can not be defeated by entering
into compromise with the wife.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 302 OF 2002
Shivaji S/o Sayaji Hivale
V E R S U S
Sakhubai W/o Shivaji Hiwale
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12th FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2241
1. The present Revision Application is directed
against the Judgment and Order dated 11/08/2002 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in
Petition No. E454/
2001, whereby the learned Principal
Judge of the Family Court allowed the Petition filed by
present non applicant Nos. 1 and 2 partly and directed that
the applicant shall pay the maintenance @ ` 700/[
Rupees
Seven Hundred only] per month from the date of the
application to the non applicant No. 1 and ` 500/[
Rupees
Five Hundred only] per month to the non applicant No. 2
from the date of the application together with the payment of
costs of ` 500/[
Rupees Five Hundred only].
2. Heard Mr. K.P.Phatake holding for Mr.
D.P.Palodkar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.
M.M.Joshi, the learned counsel for non applicant Nos. 1 and
2/wife and son.
The parties will be referred hereinafter as
husband, wife and son for the sake of convenience.
3. The relation between the parties as husband,
wife and son is not in dispute. On 30/06/2001, wife and
minor son was required to approach to the Family Court for
their due right of maintenance from husband.
The marriage took place prior to 13 years at
village Lihakhedi. The petition for maintenance states that
for a period of one year, wife was treated with due respect,
however, subsequently, she was subjected to all sorts of
abuses at the hands of husband and her inlaws.
The said
atrocities were disclosed by wife to her father, however, she
was given understanding to her that in the matrimonial life,
such thing do take place.
Even at the time of pregnancy, the illtreatment
continued and she was sent to her parental house. That time
also, her parents prevailed upon wife and she returned to her
matrimonial house.
4. On 10/07/1998, the wife along with son was
driven out of the matrimonial house and since then they are
residing in the parental house of wife.
5. It was stated that the petition for maintenance
was filed on 20/09/1998 by them vide Petition No.
614/1998. The said petition was compromised and in
pursuance to the said compromise, from 12/11/1999 wife
and son started residing with the husband.
The husband, however, after the lapse of one
month, again continued his old habit of illtreatment. It was
pointed out that husband has established illicit relations with
one Kantabai Shirsath and on her instigation, the wife was
subjected to all sorts of atrocities. On 21/05/2000, she was
again driven out.
6. On hearing and from perusal, it is clear that prior
to filing of the present petition for maintenance, on 2
occasions, she was required to file petition for maintenance.
Out of that, one was compromised and one was dismissed for
want of prosecution as she was absent.
7. The learned Principal Judge of the Family Court
has considered the history of the previous filing of
maintenance cases. The learned court also considered the
contention on behalf of the husband that in lieu of the
compromise, sale deed was executed in her favour in respect
of 0.40 R.
The learned counsel for the applicant before this
Court also reiterated that since the sale deed was executed,
the wife is having sufficient means for her maintenance.
8. It is to be noted that the xerox copy of the sale
deed is placed on record along with list of documents [Exh.
7]. The said sale deed is not executed by husband Shivaji,
however, it was executed by one Tukaram Sakharam Hiwale.
Further, there is nothing available on record to show that the
wife is in actual physical possession of the said land and she
is cultivating the same. The husband was under boundand
duty to prove the said fact. In absence of any positive
evidence in that behalf, the just right of the wife to claim
maintenance can not be defeated on the basis of the sale
deed which was not executed by husband. Further, the
claim of maintenance of son can not be defeated by entering
into compromise with the wife.
9. The learned Principal Judge of the Family Court,
on evaluation of the evidence, found that the husband was
responsible for the neglect of wife and son. Further, from
the available evidence, according to the learned Principal
Judge of the Family Court, husband is having sufficient
means to provide maintenance. In my view, the learned
Principal Judge of the Family Court has not committed any
mistake in reaching to the quantum. The evaluation of the
record shows that there is no perversity or any error in the
impugned Judgment warranting interference by this Court.
10. Hence, the present Revision Application is
dismissed.
[V.M.DESHPANDE, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment