Shantaraju Mahadeo Appa v. Radhika Sunita Shantaraju And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2004 Shantaraju s/o. Mahadeo Appa, Age 43 years, Occu. Retired Militryman, R/o. Navyug Colony, H.No. 38, Bhausingpura, Aurangabad.

....Petitioner.

Versus

1.

Radhika D/o. Sunita (but named as daughter of Shantaraju), Age 6 years, Occu. Education minor U/g. Sunita claiming herself to be the wife of the present petitioner Shantaraju, R/o. Bhimnagar, Bhausingpura, A'bad.

2.

Manjunath s/o. Sunita (but named as son of Shantaraju), Age 3 years, Occu. Education, R/o. & U/g.

As above.

3.

The State of Maharashtra 4.

Sunita claiming also her alias name as Mangalagauri and also claiming herself as wife of Shantaraju, R/o. As above, Bhimnagar, Bhausingpura, A'bad.

....Respondents.

Miss. S.S. Raut, APP for State.

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 18th January, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1) This Court is deciding the matter on merits in

absence of the counsel for petitioner. On last date, i.e. on 6.1.2017 nobody had turned up for petitioner and so, the matter was kept for final disposal today.

2) The proceeding is filed to challenge the order of Family Court, Aurangabad delivered in Petition E. No. 154/2003, which was filed by respondents for relief of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court has granted maintenance to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, son and daughter, at the rate of Rs.500/- each.

3) In the application, it was contended against the present petitioner that the marriage of Sunita alias Mangalagauri was solemnized with present petitioner Shantaraju in the year 1990 in a temple from Andhra Pradesh as per Hindu rites and customs. It was contended that from the present petitioner, respondent Sunita had given birth to three issues. It was contended that there was continuous cohabitation for more than 13 years and after that illtreatment was given to Sunita by present petitioner and she was deserted. Contention was made that eldest issue was snatched from Sunita and remaining two issues remained with her. It was contended that report was given to police due to the illtreatment and N.C. was also registered. It

appears that present applicant was serving in military. 4) It was the case of respondents that they have no source of income and they were unable to maintain themselves. On the date of decision, the present petitioner had retired from military and he was getting pension of Rs.5,000/- p.m. It was contended that petitioner is also earning by working as a contractor and his total income was more than Rs.10,000/- p.m. Maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. was prayed by the wife and for issues, it was prayed at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. each.

5) The proceeding was contested by the present petitioner by filing written statement. He had taken defence of total denial and he had denied the relationship with Sunita and two minor issues of Sunita. Allegations of improper behaviour and bad character were made against Sunita. Present petitioner had contended that he was from Karnataka and he was living with his wife and sons there.

6) Sunita has examined herself and she has also examined two witnesses like Shri. Bhagwan and Shri. Deoda. Some documents showing the relationship or atleast

cohabitation were produced in the evidence of those two witnesses. These two witnesses are advocate and notary. The Family Court has considered the details of cohabitation given by the wife during her evidence and the Court has believed that there was continuous cohabitation and during the cohabitation, three issues were born to her.

7) Present petitioner had examined himself and he has given evidence on his marriage with other lady. He has given evidence that Sunita had married with other man by name Nivrutti from Nanded. In view of the nature of evidence, the Court held that there was probably no legal marriage between Sunita and the present petitioner, but there was cohabitation and three issues were born to Sunita from present petitioner. The record which was proved in the evidence of aforesaid two witnesses is given importance by the Family Court for proof of cohabitation.

8) The Family Court held that Sunita was not in a position to make earning and she was not able to maintain the issues born from the present petitioner. Considering the status of the parties and the fact that the wife was not entitled to get maintenance, meager amount of Rs. 500/- p.m. is granted by the

Family Court to two minor issues. The order was made on 20.4.2004. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the order made by the Family Court cannot be called as illegal and there is no reason to interfere in the decision given by the Family Court. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. [ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/