Mrs Ushabai Subhash Wanve v. Subhash Shankar Wanve
*1*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2005 Ushabai w/o Subhash Wanve, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Houosehold, R/o Rohatwadi, now at Kotan, Taluka Patoda, District Beed.
Vanita d/o Subhash Wanve, Age : 14 years, minor u/g of her mother Ushabai Petitioner No.1.
Nitin s/o Subhash Wanve, Age : 12 years, minor u/g of his mother Petitioner No.1.
...PETITIONERS -VERSUSSubhash s/o Shankar Wanve, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, Ex-Military-man, R/o Rohatwadi, Taluka Patoda, District Beed.
...RESPONDENT ...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri S.S.Bora.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Fulchand R Tandale. ...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 09th June, 2016 Oral Judgment:
*2* I have heard Shri Bora and Shri Tandale, learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.
Considering the issue involved, I am not required to advert to their entire submissions.
It is not in dispute that the Respondent/ husband secured divorce against Petitioner No.1 on the ground of adultery. The appeal filed belatedly suffered rejection on account of the application for condonation of delay having been rejected by the Appeal Court. Challenge of the Petitioner to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay was not entertained by this Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the decree for divorce on the ground of adultery has attained finality. Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dis-entitles the wife from seeking allowance for the maintenance if the decree for divorce is based on a finding of adultery. The wife would, therefore, not be entitled to receive any amount for the maintenance or interim maintenance or expenses of the proceedings as the case may be, from her husband if she is living in adultery.
*3* It is jointly submitted that the matter in between the Petitioners and the Respondent to the extent of payment of maintenance in favour of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has been settled between the parties. In the light of the above and considering the law applicable, I do not find that the impugned order dated 28.03.2005 delivered by the learned Revisional Court refusing maintenance to the Petitioner No.1 could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This Criminal Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)