In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner husband challenged the revision court order directing him to pay maintenance. The High Court rejected the petition, holding no interference was needed as the revision court had correctly reversed the lower court.
None; Petition rejected summarily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 488 OF 2007
Kashinath Eknath Kakade ..Petitioner
Vs.
Sundarabi Kashinath Kakade and anr. ..Respondents
Mr. Ajay Joshi for petitioner.
Mr. D.R. More, APP for State.
CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.
Date : August 17, 2007.
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner-husband. The respondent-wife had filed
Criminal Misc.Application No. 323 of 2003 and claimed
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said
application was rejected by the learned 3rd JMFC at
Pandharpur on the grounds that the applicant could not
prove that she was legally wedded wife of the
non-applicant, she could not prove that she was unable
to maintain herself and that the applicant had failed
to prove that the non-applicant was having sufficient
means to pay maintenance.
:2:
2. The respondent-wife, therefore, challenged the
order passed by the learned JMFC in Criminal Revision
Application No. 69 of 2006 and the same has been
allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at
Pandharpur vide his judgment and order dated
11/1/2007. Hence this petition by the husband.
3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge reversed the
findings of the trial court on all the issues. He
referred to the depositions of the applicant-wife.
She had stated that she was married to the
non-applicant about 40 years back and subsequently the
non-applicant married for the second and third time.
His second marriage was with a lady called Nagarbai of
Eklaspur and the third marriage was with one Suman
from Upari. In support of her statement about the
multiple marriages of the non-applicant, she examined
Shri Dnynoba Pore, who was of 81 years of age at the
relevant time and this witness stated before the court
that the applicant was married with the non-applicant
at the first instance. Though the non-applicant did
not step in the witness box, he examined one witness
by name Sopan Tatyaba Kakade who only stated that the
:3:
non-applicant was married to Nagarbai. The revision
court has drawn adverse inference against the
non-applicant-husband as he did not step in the
witness box and the revision court also relied upon
the evidence of Shri Dnynoba Pore and held that the
applicant was the legally wedded wife of the
non-applicant and for this finding the revision court
also relied upon the voter’s list. The applicant’s
name was appearing at Sr.No.603 as Kakade Sunderabai
Kashinath in the voter’s list.
4. It is, therefore, evident that the view taken
by the learned JMFC was grossly erroneous and contrary
to the evidence on record. The revision court rightly
stepped in and allowed the revision application. No
interference is called for in the impugned order
directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the
rate of Rs.800/- p.m. to the present respondent
no.1-wife.
5. The petition is rejected summarily.
:4:
(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the revision court's order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance.
Whether the trial court's finding that the respondent could not prove her legal marriage was legally correct.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kashinath Eknath Kakade
Sundarabi Kashinath Kakade
B.H. Marlapalle
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court