Case Note & Summary
The applicant-husband, Ashok Bongulwar, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the concurrent findings of the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded and the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, which granted maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent-wife, Asha Bongulwar, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The marriage was solemnized on 15-02-2001. After marriage, the husband allegedly started demanding dowry and subjected the wife to cruelty and harassment. The wife claimed that she was forced to sign blank stamp papers and was driven out of the matrimonial house on 31-12-2004. She filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 87 of 2005 for maintenance, which was allowed by the Magistrate. The husband's revision (Criminal Revision Application No. 79 of 2008) was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The husband then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The main legal issue was whether the concurrent findings of the courts below were perverse or illegal, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The husband argued that the wife had deserted him without sufficient cause and that she was capable of earning. The wife contended that she was forced to leave due to dowry demands and had no independent income. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or illegal. The court noted that the husband failed to prove that the wife deserted him without sufficient cause. The wife's version that she was driven out after forcible signature on blank stamp paper was accepted by the courts below. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and dismissed the application, upholding the maintenance grant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Concurrent Findings - The applicant-husband challenged the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge granting maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent-wife. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless they are perverse or illegal. The husband failed to prove that the wife deserted him without sufficient cause. The court upheld the maintenance order. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Desertion - The husband alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily. However, the courts below found that the wife was driven out after forcible signature on blank stamp paper. The High Court held that the burden to prove desertion is on the husband, which he failed to discharge. The wife's version that she was forced to leave due to dowry demands was accepted. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are legal and valid, and whether the High Court should interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal application, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below granting maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a summary remedy to prevent vagrancy
- wife's right to maintenance is not defeated by husband's allegations of desertion unless proved
- concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless perverse or illegal
