Criminal Writ Petition No. 4 of 2011. Case: Ramesh Dagaa Landge Vs Sau. Sindhubai Ramesh Landge and others. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition No. 4 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: Amit S. Salve, Adv. and For Respondents: S. U. Chaudhari, Adv. |
| Judges | T. V. Nalawade, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 125 |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 3593 |
| Judgement Date | June 13, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 29 of 2008, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada. The Sessions Court has set aside the judgment and order of J.M.F.C. by which the maintenance was refused to Respondent No. 1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 1.
-
Both the sides are heard.
-
The parties are Hindu by religion. Their marriage took place in the year 1992. They have two issues out of this marriage. In the year 2005, maintenance proceedings was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by present respondents, but it was dismissed for non-prosecution, due to absence of the wife. The present proceedings came to be filed in the year 2007. The J.M.F.C. granted maintenance to two issues, but refused the maintenance to the wife by holding that, she has been living separate without sufficient reason and she has also agreed not to claim the maintenance. The husband took the defence that one document of divorce named as "Pharkat Patra" was executed by the parties and due to the said document, the wife is not entitled to get the maintenance. It is the case of the wife that there was an agreement to make provision of residence and maintenance for the wife and the issues, but that part of agreement was never complied with. The husband has contended that he had acted as per the agreement and he had given house and cash amount to the wife and issues. The Sessions Court has held that though there was such agreement, that agreement is not enforceable in view of the provisions of the Contract Act. The Sessions Court has relied on the case of [1987 Cri LJ 765 (1), Kerala High Court (Sadashiv Pillai v. Vijayalakshmi)].
-
The execution of the document titled as "Pharkat Patra", divorce deed, is not disputed. There is a mention in the document that in the caste of the parties, there is a custom of such divorce. The submissions made in this proceedings show that the husband is not interested to prosecute his defence that under the document, divorce was taken by the parties. Submissions were made for the husband that there was parallel oral agreement under which some arrangements were made for making provisions of maintenance for the wife and issues. Evidence is accordingly given by the parties.
-
Two different defences...
To continue reading
Request your trial