Bombay High Court
Madhuri W/O Rajesh Badge (Madhuri D/O ... vs Rajesh S/O Dataraj Badge on 24 April, 2023
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt
1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO.116 OF 2015
Madhuri W/o. Rajesh Badge,
(Madhuri D/o. Bhagwan Bagde)
Aged 37 Yrs., Occ.: Household,
R/o. C/o. Baisa Aradhya, Plot No. 45,
Near Madhav Kale House, Navin
Kailash Nagar, Nagpur .... APPLICANT
// V E R S U S //
Rajesh S/o. Dataraj Badge,
Aged 40 Yrs., Occ.: Private,
R/o. Ramabai Ambedkar Ward,
Near Mauli Mandir, Jaitala, Nagpur ... NON-APPLICANT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the applicant
Ms Sneha Dhopte, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 24th APRIL, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned appointed Advocate for the non- applicant. .
2. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order, dated 09.05.2014, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur whereby the learned Judge dismissed ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 2 the application made by the applicant-wife seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The facts relevant for deciding this application may be stated as follows:
The applicant and non-applicant got married on 18.04.2008 at Nagpur. It is the case of the applicant that after marriage the non-applicant and his parents got converted to Buddhism. After few months they again got converted to Christian religion. The applicant is the ardent follower of Mahanubhav Sect.
The non-applicant and his parents wanted her to abandon Mahanubhav Sect and adopt christian religion. The applicant did not agree for the same. It is stated that, therefore, the non-applicant and his parents used to quarrel with her. They were discriminating the applicant in the matter of prayer of god. They pressurized the applicant to follow and adopt Christianity. It is the case of the applicant that non-applicant was playing in the hands of his parents. All the family members of the non-applicant ill-treated her. They even doubted her chastity and character.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 3
4. On 30.10.2010, there was celebration of Chakrapani Jayanti at Chakreshwar temple, Bhaldarpura, Nagpur. She requested the non-applicant to accompany her to the temple. He refused to do so. The non-applicant and his parents threatened her not to come back to their house after visiting the temple. In the night, when she came back, the non-applicant and her in-laws did not open the door. They did not allow her to enter the house. The applicant took shelter at the house of her uncle-in-law. On the next day she went to the house of the non-applicant. However, she was not accepted in the house. Therefore, she went to her parental home and started residing there.
5. It is her case that she has no source of income. Non- applicant is working in MIDC. His monthly salary is about Rs.10,000/-. She demanded the maintenance by issuing notice dated 01.11.2010. The non-applicant did not comply the notice. She, therefore, filed the application for maintenance and prayed for maintenance @ of Rs.5000/- per month.
6. The non-applicant-husband filed the reply and ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 4 opposed the application and denied the material allegations made in the application. According to the non-applicant, the applicant was not behaving properly with them. She was keeping her goods, articles and eating utensils separately from other family members. She was not doing household work. She used to abuse them in filthy language like "lkys eknjpksn fcuMksd vkgsr- ;kauk dk; letr ukgh rj rqEgh dk; vkgkr-" She used to go to temple on every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. She used to come back to the house late. The applicant has aborted her three and half months pregnancy without consent of the non-applicant. He spent near about Rs.15000/- for her medical treatment. The applicant administered some medicine to the non-applicant and therefore he was required to be hospitalized. When he and his father went to Borgaon for cultivation of the land for eight days, in their absence the applicant quarreled with his mother and extended threat to implicate them in a false case. She lodged the false report on 20.01.2012 at MIDC Police Station. It is his contention that the applicant without any reasonable cause or reason withdrew herself from his company. She has left his house without any sufficient ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 5 reason. He has tried to bring her back but she refused to cohabit with him. The non-applicant and his friend one Pramod Gajbhiye had gone to her parents house to bring her back, however she flatly refused to come back and cohabit with the non-applicant. The notice was issued to her to come back and stay with the non- applicant. However, it was of no use. The applicant in the month of January 2012 on her own without any reason left the matrimonial house.
7. The parties adduced the evidence before Family Court. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence found that the applicant without any sufficient reason refused to live with her husband. Learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by this order the applicant is before this Court.
8. Learned Advocate for the applicant remained absent on number of dates. Learned Advocate Ms Sneha Dhopte appointed to represent the non-applicant at the cost of the State. She has extended the best possible assistance to this Court to dispose of this matter in the absence of the Advocate for the applicant. ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 6 Learned appointed Advocate took me through the entire record and proceedings.
9. Learned appointed Advocate for the non-applicant submitted that order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is well reasoned order and therefore, does not warrant interference. Learned Advocate submitted that the applicant in her cross examination has categorically admitted the defence of the non- applicant set out in his reply. Learned Advocate took me through the evidence of the applicant as well as the evidence of the non- applicant. Learned Advocate pointed out from the cross examination of the applicant that she has admitted that she is ready to cohabit with non-applicant provided he stays at Nagpur. She has also admitted that the non-applicant and his friend had come to her parents house to take her back, but she did not go with them. Learned Advocate submitted that the applicant without any reasonable cause refused to cohabit with the non-applicant and therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance.
10. I have minutely perused the evidence adduced by ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 7 the parties. I have also gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Learned Judge of the Family Court has recorded a finding that the applicant has no sufficient means and she is unable to maintain herself. Learned Judge has recorded a finding that the non-applicant has not failed and neglected to maintain the applicant. Perusal of the evidence of the applicant and non-applicant would show that since beginning they were at logger heads on account of their independent religious beliefs. The applicant was not ready to convert to christian religion. It has come on record that the non-applicant on the date of the marriage was professing the Buddha religion. Therefore, the case of the applicant that initially they converted to Buddha religion and later on to Christianity is not at all acceptable. It is the case of the applicant that on account of refusal to convert to christian religion she was subjected to torture. It is seen on perusal of her evidence that during her stay at the matrimonial house on every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday she used to attend the temple. It is therefore, seen that she was not denied the liberty to go to the temple to offer the prayer. Further, perusal of her evidence would show that the ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 8 applicant has no grievance, as such, against the non-applicant. The grievance was against her in-laws. She did not want to live with them at village Borgaon. She wanted the non-applicant to shift to Nagpur and stay with her at Nagpur. She has admitted in cross examination that she is ready to reside with the non-applicant to Nagpur but she is not ready to reside with the non-applicant at village Borgaon. She has further admitted that in the year 2010 the non-applicant and one Pramod Gajbhiye had come to her parents house to take her back. They stayed there for one night. She has stated that she went to her matrimonial home with them. This admission of the applicant would show that if there was any kind of ill-treatment or torture to the applicant, as stated by her, she would not have returned back to matrimonial home.
11. It is further seen on perusal of her cross examination that she has candidly admitted that she is willing to reside with her husband separately from his parents. She has admitted that there was no ill-treatment to her by the non-applicant. She has categorically admitted that her husband had not neglected and ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 9 refused to maintain her. She has stated that even today also she can live with him happily. It is, therefore, apparent that applicant had grudge against her in-laws. As per her admission she was not ill- treated by the non-applicant. In her cross examination, she has made a statement that she want divorce from the non-applicant if the non-applicant is ready to pay her one time alimony.
12. The above facts would show that the non-applicant has neither failed nor neglected to maintain applicant. The applicant, as can be seen from her evidence, without any sufficient reason refused to live with her husband. Learned Judge of the Family Court on the basis of this evidence placed reliance on Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to record finding against the applicant. On going through the record afresh I do not see that learned Judge has committed any mistake or illegality.
13. In view of the above, the income and other factors would become insignificant. The evidence on record is sufficient to conclude that the non-applicant has not failed and neglected to ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::
213.revn.116.2015 judge.odt 10 maintain her. The applicant on her own has been residing at the house of her parents. She did not join the non-applicant despite sincere efforts made by him. Learned Judge of the Family Court on taking all the facts into consideration rejected the application for maintenance. On going through the material I do not see any substance in the revision application.
14. Learned appointed Advocate for the non-applicant deserves a word of appreciation for the assistance rendered by her to the Court. Learned appointed Advocate Ms Sneha Dhopte is entitled to receive fees, which is quantified at Rs.7000/-, to be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Sub Committee, Nagpur.
15. The revision application is accordingly dismissed.
16. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) Namrata ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2023 10:30:30 :::