1 CRWP 978-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD UNREPORTED CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 2010 Date of decision:11/2/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/11-2-11/978-10crwp 2 CRWP 978-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 2010 Dr.Shri Rajendra s/o Sudam Chaudhari Age 38 years, Occu: Doctor and agriculture R/o Prakasha, Tq. Shahada, Dist.Nandurbar. ...PETITIONER (Orig.Respondent) VERSUS 1. Sau.Jayashri w/o Rajendra Chaudhari Age: 33 years, Occu: Nil, r/o Sulwade, Tq. Shahada, Dist.Nandurbar. 2. Neha d/o Rajendra Chaudhari, Age: 10 years, Occu: Nil. 3. Jaykumar s/o Rajendra Chaudhari, Age: 8 years, Occu: Nil. Both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minors and u/g of their natural mother who is respondent no.1. Both R/o Sulwade, Tq.Shahada, Dist.Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS (Orig.Applicant nos.1 to 3) ... Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.Amit S.Savale, Adv., for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11/2/2011 *** 3 CRWP 978-10 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Miscellaneous proceedings by Application No.15/2007 was moved by the wife (respondent) against the petitioner (husband) in terms of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance for herself and two children. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on assessment of the evidence, did not approve maintenance to the wife while granted maintenance to Neha and Jaikumar, children, at the rate of Rs.1500/- p.m. 3. Being aggrieved by rejection of maintenance to the wife, and grant of maintenance to the children, wife and husband carried the matter in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 25/2008 and 26/2008 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Shahada, who, by the impugned order, rejected contention of the husband to quash maintenance to the children and allowed Revision Application No.26/2008 of the wife (respondent), directing the husband (petitioner) to pay Rs.2,000/- as maintenance from 1.2.2007. 4. Grant of maintenance to the wife is 4 CRWP 978-10 questioned by the husband principally on the admissions elicited in her cross examination, to the effect that her husband (petitioner) has become mentally ill, that he treated the wife properly for five years, she is unwilling to join the husband since husband has lost mental control. She was residing at her parental house on her own accord and non applicant (husband) has no agricultural land, he is not doing practice as a Doctor, the non applicant(husband) is unable to pay separate maintenance and acceptance that it is not just and proper reason for her to reside at her parents house. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (husband) reiterated, in the light of these overwhelming admissions, there was no reason and occasion for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant maintenance in the revision. The admissions are not read in proper perspective and the finding is perverse. 6. Learned Counsel for the wife (Respondent) criticized filing of the present proceedings by virtue of writ, as same is not maintainable in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, being a Court of competence to assess the evidence, need not be gone into and dissected in the writ 5 CRWP 978-10 jurisdiction, the scope of writ jurisdiction is limited and need not be enlarged. Counsel also submits, the admission, by itself, will not be fatal to liquidate the wife from claiming maintenance as it is a statutory arrangement, stray admissions should not thwart right of the wife to stake maintenance. Learned Counsel relied to the following judgments: (1) AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1712 (Sita Ram Bhau Patil V. Ramchandra Nago Patil (dead) by LRs and another) (2) AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 1542 (Chikkam Koteswara Rao V. Chikkam Subbarao and others) (3) Judgment of Apex Court dt.19th Nov., 2010 in the matter of Saygo Bai vs.Cheeru Bajrangi in Criminal Appeal No.2169/2010) (4) Judgment of Gauhati High Court in the matter of Weldone Lyngdoh vs. Eva Phawa dt.11.12.2006, judgment of Kerala High Court in the matter of Pallipattu Kadeeja, D/O. Assainar Vs. K.Beeran s/o Mohammed, dt.23rd May, 2009. (5) Judgment in the matter of Prabhubhai Ranchhodbhai Tailor Vs. Mrs. Bhartiben Prabhubhai Tailor ( 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 487) 7. In the judgments of the Apex Court, the Hon'ble Lordships have considered admissions in 6 CRWP 978-10 terms of Section 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act dealing with cross examination and so also scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Lordships in the matter of Sita Ram Bhau Patil, in paragraph no.16, have observed as under: "16. If admission is proved and if it is thereafter to be used against the party who has made it the question comes within the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The provisions in the Indian Evidence Act that 'admission is not conclusive proof' are to be considered in regard to two features of evidence. First, what weight is to be attached to an admission ? In order to attach weight it has to be found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and is a relevant piece of evidence. Second, even if the admission is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party who has made it, "it is sound that if a witness is under cross examination on oath, he should be given an opportunity if the document are to be used against him, to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. This is a general salutary and intelligible rule" (see Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit 42 Indian Appeals 135 at page 147). The Judicial Committee in that case said, "it has to be observed with regret and with surprise that the general principle and the specific statutory provisions have not been followed". The general principle is that before any person is to be faced with any statement he should be given an opportunity to see that statement and to answer the same. The specific statutory provision is contained in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act that "A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant matters in question, without such writing being shown to him or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him". Therefore, a mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission is alleged to be has concluded his evidence, will be of no avail a cannot be 7 CRWP 978-10 utilised against him." 8. The Hon'ble Lordships, in the matter of Chikkam Koteswara Rao, have observed in paragraph No.3, as under: "3. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that but for the aforementioned statement of the appellant, the High Court would not have disturbed the finding of the trial Court as regards the properties covered by Exh. B-6. Before the right of a party can be considered to have been defeated on the basis of an alleged admission by him, the implication of the statement made by him must be clear and conclusive. There should be no doubt or ambiguity about the alleged admission. There is no difference in the nature of the acquisitions made under Exhs. B-2 to B-5 and B-7 and that made under Exh. B-6. They were all made during the lifetime of Reddinaidu." 9. There should not be any quarrel and contest on the legal proposition that evidence has to be read completely, avoiding reading of stray sentences in segregation. The worth of the evidence as a whole has to be assessed, scanned and dwell upon. With these clarification, the further aspects in the matter need to be considered. 10. In the matter of Saygo Bai, identical situation crept in where three Courts have gone against the wife based on her admissions, virtually making it impossible to stake claim for maintenance. The Hon'ble Lordships, in paragraph no.10 have observed that they are not 8 CRWP 978-10 satisfied on the appreciation of evidence by the lower Courts. The Lordships have taken overall effect of admissions and also observed that some tricky questions are put. The lower Court judge concerned should have taken into consideration the justification for the wife to reside separately from her husband. 11. The effect of admission to which much emphasis is given necessarily will have to be read in juxtaposition of the evidence in chief. The matrimonial concern between the parties is not in controversy. The wife, being bewildered by the question in the cross examination that her husband has become mentally ill, naturally, got puzzled. She informed the cross examiner, she learnt about mental illness of husband for the first time. It was after this scenario, the further cross examined has reached to the so called admissions. The admissions given, referred above, is to be taken into consideration in the context of the question that was put to her, a tricky question, naturally, was put to the wife and she being puzzled due to ill-health of husband, recorded such admission. 12. Her claiming, "it is true to say that as the Non Applicant (husband) lost mental control I am not willing to cohabit with him" does not necessarily mean that she accepts mental ill 9 CRWP 978-10 health of her husband, since its context has to be shown with her earlier answer. She does not necessarily mean mental illness to read incapacitating the husband - it may be arrogance or anger in the mind of the husband. 13. The admission that Non applicant (husband) has no agricultural land has to be read from revenue record ( Ex.26 to 32), indicating holding of 54 Acres irrigated land. Non applicant is a member of the joint family. The husband gets good yield of the agricultural income, not disputed by him. It may be that agricultural properties may not be in the name of husband but, nevertheless, he was and is a member of the joint family. Consequently, the admission that the Non Applicant has no agricultural land has come on surface, which need not foreclose maintenance. 14. Non applicant could have stopped practicing as a Doctor but it is a temporary phase. Taking survey of the earlier parts of the evidence, coupled with the evidence of her father, it is explicit that the wife was driven from the company of her husband, without her will/wish by the husband as she was dropped at her parental house by the husband. Specific instances of ill-treatment with events dt. 25.2.2003, have gone un-controverted. The 10 CRWP 978-10 petitioner/husband did not step in witness box, nor any medical proof is tendered to demonstrate mental illness of husband. The appreciation of evidence carried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be couched with surmises and conjectures. With the scope that was available to the learned Additional Sessions Judge he has rightly scanned the evidence, considered the plight of the wife and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. This was in tune to the status of the husband who gets good yield of the agricultural properties and is financially well-to-do. The wife, naturally, is expected to maintain and live with the standard in which her husband is enjoying the life. 14. The scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has its in-built limitations and need not be traversed, dissected to a far stretched position. With this, I do not see any perversity or illegality in the order under challenge. Writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/978-10crwp