Bhausaheb S/O. Laxman Kshirsagar Vs. Laxman S/O. Bhimraj Kshirsagar and ors. - Court Judgment

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent nos.3 and 4 absent, although served.

2. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original respondent no.1) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and under Sections 482 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that judgment and order dated 24-3-2004, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Rahuri, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 365/2002, and the judgment and order dated 9-9-2004, rendered by the learned 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 130/2004, be quashed and set aside by issuance of writ of certiorari.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The petitioner herein, namely, Bhausaheb, and respondent no.3, Rambhau, and respondent no.4, Bharat, are sons of respondent no.1, Laxman, and respondent no.2, Smt. Gayabai. The respondent nos.1 and 2, namely, Laxman and Smt. Gayabai i.e. parents of petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 herein, filed an application for maintenance against the petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 herein, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Rahuri, under Criminal Misc. Application No. 365/2002, and thereby claimed maintenance from them, at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The said parents contended in the said application that their sons are residing separately from them and both of them are of old age and they are having no source of income. They also contended that they were having ancestral properties, but the same were mutated in the names of their aforesaid three sons. It is also case of the applicants that they are illiterate and by taking undue disadvantage of their illiteracy, the petitioner herein got entered his own name in the land bearing Gut No. 309, and hence both of them became landless. They further asserted that the petitioner herein i.e. respondent no.1 in the said application was serving with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-, and also earns Rs. 1,50,000/- per year from agricultural Bagayat lands, and also his wife earns Rs. 2000/- per month from suing machine.

4. The said applicants also asserted that the Opponent no.2 Rambhau was also having agricultural Bagayat land and he was getting Rs. 75,000/- per year, whereas Opponent no.3 Bharat was also having agricultural Bagayat lands and he was also getting Rs. 1,00,000/- per year therefrom. They also contended that he was having business of milk and he was getting Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month therefrom. The application of the said applicants also revealed that due to old age, the opponent deserted them and did not make any provision for their food, shelter and clothes. Moreover, it is submitted that each of the opponents is in well position to provide separate maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicants. It is also contended that the applicant no.1 was in need of emergent fund of Rs. 20,000/- for his operation on the eye, but none of the respondents was ready and willing therefor. Hence, applicants were constrained to file said application claiming maintenance as mentioned therein.

5. The respondent nos.1 to 3 therein i.e. petitioner herein and the respondent nos.3 and 4 herein appeared in the said application and filed their respective replies and opposed the said application and submitted that they have maintained their old parents properly. The respondent no.1 therein contended that Gut No.309 was kept for the applicants as a joint family ancestral property in the petition filed about 20 years back and applicants and respondent nos.2 and 3 were residing therein jointly. However, it is submitted that the applicants sold Gut No. 309 to Opponent no.1 for consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and thereafter they started disturbing the possession of Opponent no.1. Hence, he filed Civil Suit against all of them. Not only that, the applicant assaulted Opponent no.1 and his son. Hence, they lodged one complaint with the Police Station and hence, being annoyed, the present application is filed for maintenance in collusion with Opponent nos.2 and 3. It is further contended that Opponent no.1 is unable to maintain family members on his monthly salary, and therefore, unable to provide separate maintenance to the applicants. On the contrary, it is submitted that applicants are in good financial position and they are having house property bearing Nos. 598 and 379/2 in their own name and applicant no.1 is a contractor and labourers are working under him, and he is earning huge amount from the said business, as well as, he is member of Mula Pravara Electric Society, and he is having fixed deposit receipts at Rahuri factory and earning interest thereon. It is further submitted that applicants and Opponent no.2 were having joint milk business and they were earning huge amount therefrom. Accordingly, Opponent no.1 submitted that the applicants were able to maintain themselves, whereas Opponent no.1 was unable to provide separate maintenance for them and hence prayed for rejection of the said application.

6. The Opponent no.2 also filed his say, and according to him, after partition, Gut No. 309 was kept in the name of applicants for their maintenance, but thereafter Opponent no.1 by cheating the applicants, got mutated his name on Gut No. 309 and he was cultivating the said land. It is submitted that Opponent no.1 is an educated person and he is serving in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and whole responsibility of the applicants was with him. Hence, Opponent no.2 submitted that he is not duty bound to provide separate maintenance to his parents. Besides, he submitted that he was unable to provide separate maintenance as he is poor and having no source of income, and accordingly, prayed for rejection of the said application.

7. Opponent no.3 also filed his say and stated that at the time of partition, Gut No. 309 was kept for applicants and they were residing with Opponent no.1. However, thereafter, Opponent no.1 got mutated his name in Gut No. 309 by cheating and executing fake registered sale deed in his favour, and hence, it is submitted that responsibility to maintain the applicants is primarily on Opponent no.1. It is further submitted that Opponent no.3 is not in a position to provide separate maintenance to applicants and accordingly, prayed for rejection of the said application.

8. To substantiate the case of the applicants, the applicant examined himself, whereas Opponent no.1 examined himself to counter the same, as well as, Opponent nos.2 and 3 also examined themselves, and accordingly, parties adduced oral evidence, as well as, produced documentary evidence. The applicants produced 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 21, 22, 23 and 24, whereas Opponent no.1 relied upon copy of plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 135/2002 at Exhibit 37, and notice of Umbare Grampanchayat at Exhibit 40, 8-A extract at Exhibit 39, notice of Dnyaneshwar Doodh Sahakari Sanstha at Exhibit 55, copy of affidavit in R.C.S. No. 135/2002 at Exhibit 56.

9. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, and also considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Rahuri, allowed the said application by judgment and order dated 24-3-2004, and thereby directed the Opponent no.1 to provide maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to applicant no.1, and Rs. 500/- per month to applicant no.2 from the date of the said application, and also directed Opponent no.2 to provide maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to applicant no.1, and maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to applicant no.2 from the date of the said application, as well as, directed Opponent no.3 to pay maintenance of Rs. 500/- to applicant no.1 and Rs. 500/- per month to applicant no.2 from the date of the application, and further directed Opponent nos.1 to 3 to pay amount of Rs. 500/- each to the applicants towards costs of the said application.

10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order granting maintenance to the applicants, dated 24-3-2004, Opponent no.1 therein, namely, Bhausaheb i.e. petitioner herein, preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 130/2004 before the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar. However, on perusal and scrutiny of Record & Proceedings and also after considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties, learned 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dismissed the said revision petition by judgment and order dated 9-9-2004. Thereafter, original Opponent no.1 i.e. petitioner herein approached this Court by filing present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Sections 482 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and prayed for quashment of the judgment and order of the Trial Court, as well as, judgment and order of Revisional Court.

11. Respondent no.2 Gayabai has filed her affidavit in reply and opposed the present petition vehemently and stated that the petitioner herein has deprived respondent nos.1 and 2 from the agricultural land and got sale deed executed in his name without any consideration taking disadvantage of their illiteracy. She also stated that she is mother of petitioner and taking disadvantage of her illiteracy, the petitioner got executed false affidavit from her under undue influence and by misrepresentation and committed fraudulent activities in the matter, and accordingly, the petitioner committed breach of trust of his parents. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has rightly decided the matter of maintenance which is legal and proper and the learned revisional court has rightly dismissed the said revision application filed by the petitioner herein, and hence, urged that present petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed with costs.

SUBMISSIONS

12. Adv. Mr. S.K. Shelke, for the petitioner, submitted that there is no neglect or refusal to maintain respondent nos.1 and 2, and it is canvassed that there was partition long back, wherein Gut No. 309 was kept for applicants, but they sold the same to the petitioner herein for consideration of Rs. 80,000/-, and thereafter respondent nos.1 and 2 started obstruction in possession of petitioner in Gut No. 309, and hence, he filed Suit against them, and therefore, the respondents assaulted the petitioner herein, and hence, he filed complaint with the Police Station. Moreover, it is submitted that the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed false application in collusion with other respondents for maintenance. It is also submitted by the petitioner that he is unable to maintain his family members since his salary is meagre, whereas respondent nos.1 and 2 herein are having sound financial position and they are in possession of house property bearing Nos. 598 and 379/2, and it is further argued that the respondent no.1 is a contractor and earns big amount from the said business, and also earns interest on the fixed deposit receipt kept in Rahuri factory. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court, as well as, revisional court are arbitrary and unsustainable, and therefore, same be dismissed.

13. Adv. Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, for respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, contended that the respondent nos.1 and 2 had the landed property but the petitioner herein got his name mutated therein by playing fraud upon them since the said respondent nos.1 and 2 are of old age and illiterate persons. He also stated that they have no source of income and they are unable to maintain themselves since they cannot do any work on account of their advance age. On the contrary, it is submitted that the petitioner herein works in M.S.R.T.C. and earns good amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Besides, he is getting income from agriculture, of Rs. 1,50,000/- per year and additional income from his wife by doing tailoring work. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein owns house property. It is further canvassed that respondent no.3 herein earns Rs. 75,000/- per year from agricultural land, while respondent no.4 also earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from the agricultural land, in addition, he also earns Rs. 2,500/- per month from milk business. Learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 also submitted that eye sight of applicant no.1 is weak and he needs emergent fund of Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of operation on the eye, as advised by the Doctor. According to the learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2, the petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 have neglected them i.e. their parents and they are not providing any maintenance to them. Hence, it is urged that the order passed by the learned trial court awarding the maintenance to respondent nos.1 and 2, and confirming the same by dismissal of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein, by the Sessions Court are proper and no interference therein is called for in writ jurisdiction, and therefore, submitted that present petition be dismissed.

CONSIDERATION

14. I have perused the contents of the present petition, its annexures and affidavit in reply filed by the respondent no.2 herein, and heard learned Counsel for the parties anxiously.

15. At the outset, on perusal of the judgment and order of learned trial court, by which maintenance was granted to respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, it is seen that the learned trial court has framed points for determination and after analyzing and assessing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that although the petitioner herein was having sufficient means, he neglected and refused to maintain respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, and I see no reason to interfere in the said finding. Moreover, learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence, also arrived at a conclusion that the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein have proved that they are unable to maintain themselves and considering the old age of the respondent nos.1 and 2, which is reportedly of 80 years and 75 years, respectively, and having no source of income for them, I do not find any perversity therein. Consequently, considering the position that the petitioner herein was serving as Conductor in M.S.R.T.C. and as per salary extract produced on record, disclosing that he was earning salary at the range of Rs. 6,500/- per month, learned trial court awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, from the petitioner herein, and I do not find any fault therein.

16. It also appears that the learned Revisional Court also framed the point for consideration, that whether the order of the learned Magistrate is just, legal and proper, and after verifying the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment of the learned trial court, came to the conclusion that no interference therein is warranted, and consequently, dismissed the said revision petition, and thus, it is amply clear that the learned Revisional Court also assessed the legality and correctness of the order of grant of maintenance to the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, and thereafter, confirmed it by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein.

17. In the circumstances, having comprehensive view of the matter, it is crystal clear that there is no glaring defect in the judgment and order dated 24-3-2004, passed by the learned trial court, granting maintenance to the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, and also there is no apparent error in the judgment and order dated 9-9-2004, rendered by the learned Revisional Court, dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner herein, and hence, no interference therein is warranted in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, present petition deserves to be rejected.

18. In the result, present Writ Petition bears no substance, and the same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.