Appeal against dismissal of a Section 125 CrPC maintenance application. The High Court held the applicant failed to prove she was the wife of the respondent, thus no direction for maintenance could be issued.
Rejected the application for maintenance and dismissed the criminal appeal.
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
15 appln.1854.12.doc
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1854 OF 2012
Gangabai Laxman Khating. ... APPLICANT
V E R S U S
Laxman Giram Khating.
... RESPONDENT
Mr. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 20th September, 2013.
P.C:
1 Heard.
2 The Applicant has filed an application for maintenance under
the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying
that the Respondent, who was also Respondent before the learned
Magistrate, be directed to pay maintenance to her. It appears that after the
service of notice, the Respondent did not appear before the learned
Magistrate and initially an ex-parte order was passed in favour of the
2
15 appln.1854.12.doc
Applicant. The Respondent, thereafter, moved the learned Magistrate for
setting aside the ex-parte order, which was actually set aside and the question of granting maintenance to the Applicant was considered afresh after giving an opportunity to the Respondent to have his say in the matter. Thereafter, by an order dated 18th July, 2009, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for maintenance. The Applicant moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but the Court of Sessions dismissed the revision application.
3 The reason for dismissing the application for maintenance as
given by the learned Magistrate is that the Applicant was not proved to be the wife of the Respondent. While coming to this conclusion, the learned Magistrate relied upon the evidence of one Deepak Balsekar, an Advocate,
who stated that the Applicant was actually known as Gangubai Keshavrao Kale. The claim of the Applicant before the learned Magistrate was that
she had married the Respondent in the year 1972. The evidence adduced
before the learned Magistrate disclosed that in the year 1990, the Applicant
had filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against one Keshavrao Kale. It was
3
15 appln.1854.12.doc
brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the Applicant had
applied for the provident fund and other dues payable to the Keshavrao
Kale on the death of the said Keshavrao Kale by claiming to be his wife.
The Applicant, for getting the said amounts, was produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate opined that the signatures of the Applicant and the signatures of the Applicant in the application for getting the dues payable to the wife of the Keshavrao, were matching. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that though the Applicant claimed to have resided with the Respondent since the period from 1972 to 2006, there was not satisfactory evidence to show such prolonged association between the Applicant and the Respondent.
4 In revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani concluded
that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was proper and legal. Thus, there is a concurrent findings of facts by two Courts.
5 In my opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani cannot be said to be
suffering from any perversity, infirmity or illegality. Since the Applicant
failed to establish that she is the wife of the Respondent, there was no
4
15 appln.1854.12.doc
question of directing any maintenance to be paid to her by the Respondent.
6 No case for invoking the inherent powers of this Court is made
out.
The application is rejected.
[ ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. ]
ndm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether maintenance can be granted where the applicant failed to prove she is the wife of the respondent.
Whether the dismissal of the maintenance application due to lack of proof of marital relationship was perverse or illegal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gangabai Laxman Khating
Laxman Giram Khating
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
