Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 19530/2013 In Special Leave Petition (crl.) No.8596/2013. Case: Badshah Vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr.. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 19530/2013 In Special Leave Petition (crl.) No.8596/2013|
|Party Name:||Badshah Vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr.|
|Judges:||Ranjana Prakash Desai and A.K.Sikri, JJ.|
|Issue:||Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125; Criminal Procedure Code - Section 488|
|Judgement Date:||October 18, 2013|
There is a delay of 63 days in filing the present Special Leave Petition and further delay of 11 days in refilling Special Leave Petition. For the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing and refilling of SLP is condoned.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.144/2012. By means of the impugned order, the High Court has upheld the award of maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and to respondent No.2 (daughter) at the rate of Rs.500/- per month in the application filed by them under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respondents herein had filed proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) alleging therein that respondent No.1 was the wife of the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 was their daughter, who was born out of the wedlock.
The respondents had stated in the petition that respondent No.1 was married with Popat Fapale. However, in the year 1997 she got divorce from her first husband. After getting divorce from her first husband in the year 1997 till the year 2005 she resided at the house of her parents. On demand of the petitioner for her marriage through mediators, she married him on 10.2.2005 at Devgad Temple situated at Hivargav-Pavsa. Her marriage was performed with the petitioner as per Hindu Rites and customs. After her marriage, she resided and cohabited with the petitioner. Initially for 3 months, the petitioner cohabited and maintained her nicely. After about three months of her marriage with petitioner, one lady Shobha came to the house of the petitioner and claimed herself to be his wife. On inquiring from the petitioner about the said lady Shobha, he replied that if she wanted to cohabit with him, she should reside quietly. Otherwise she was free to go back to her parents house. When Shobha came to the house of petitioner, respondent No.1 was already pregnant from the petitioner. Therefore, she tolerated the ill-treatment of the petitioner and stayed alongwith Shobha. However, the petitioner started giving mental and physical torture to her under the influence of liquor. The petitioner also used to doubt that her womb is begotten from somebody else and it should be aborted. However, when the ill-treatment of the petitioner became intolerable, she came back to the house of her parents. Respondent No.2, Shivanjali, was born on 28.11.2005. On the aforesaid averments, the respondents claimed maintenance for themselves.
The petitioner contested the petition by filing his written statement. He dined his relation with respondent Nos.1 and 2 as his wife and daughter respectively. He alleged that he never entered with any matrimonial alliance with respondent No.1 on 10.2.2005, as claimed by respondent No.1 and in fact respondent No.1, who was in the habit of leveling false allegation, was trying to blackmail him. He also denied co-habitation with respondent No.1 and claimed that he was not the father of respondent No.2 either. According to the petitioner, he had married Shobha on 17.2.1979 and from that marriage he had two children viz. one daughter aged 20 years and one son aged 17 years and Shobha had been residing with him ever since their marriage. Therefore, respondent No.1 was not and could not be his wife during the subsistence of his first marriage and she had filed a false petition claiming her relationship with him.
Evidence was led by both the parties and after hearing the arguments the learned JMFC negatived the defence of the petitioner. In his judgment, the JMFC formulated four points and gave his answer thereto as under:
Does applicant no.1 Urmila proves that she is a wife and applicant No.2 Shivanjali is daughter of non applicant
Does applicant No.1 Urmila proves that non-applicant has deserted and neglected them to maintain them through having sufficient means
Whether applicant No.1 Urmila and Applicant No.2 Shivanjali are entitled to get maintenance from non-applicant
If yes, at what rate
Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to Applicant No. 1 and Rs. 500/- p.m. to Applicant No. 2.
It is not necessary to discuss the reasons which prevailed with the learned JMFC in giving his findings on Point Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of evidence produced before the Court. We say so because of the reason that these findings are upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner herein as well as the High Court. These are concurrent findings of facts with no blemish or perversity. It was not even argued before us as the argument raised was that in any case respondent No.1 could not be treated as "wife" of the petitioner as he was already married and therefore petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. at her instance was not maintainable. Since, we are primarily concerned with this issue, which is the bone of contention, we proceed on the basis that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized; respondent No.1 co-habited with the petitioner after the said marriage; and respondent No.2 is begotten as out of the said...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL