AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil L. Pansare, J
Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned Counsel for both sides, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
The Applicants are questioning the legality, correctness and propriety of the Judgment and order dated 29/7/2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Amravati in Application No. E-87/2015. The Family Court has rejected the application filed by the Applicants under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, ‘the Code’).
The Applicant No.1 is wife, Applicant No.2 is minor son and Applicant No.3 is minor daughter of the Respondent.
The learned Family Court is of the view that the Applicants failed prove that the Respondent/husband has willfully neglected or refused to maintain them. The Family Court has further held that the Applicants failed to prove that they are unable to maintain themselves. The Family Court has then noted that the Applicants have failed to prove that the Respondent has sufficient means to maintain the Applicants. Accordingly, the Family Court has rejected the Application.
Having heard both sides and having gone through the material placed before me, it appears that the Applicants, in support of their case, have examined only the Applicant No.1/wife. The Respondent/husband did not enter the witness-box on the count that he is not mentally fit to lead evidence. However, one witness Dr. Abhishek Ashok Mamarde, who is working at the Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur has been examined in support of the Respondent’s case.
The evidence and the documents placed on record indicates that the Respondent was suffering from schizophrenia and was referred to the Mental Hospital, Nagpur. The Medical Report dated 7/2/2018 issued by the Mental Hospital, Nagpur indicates that the Respondent is suffering from “Psychosis NOS”. The Respondent was admitted to the Mental Hospital, Nagpur couple of times. On one occasion, he was admitted for the period from 19/7/2019 to 12/9/2019. The Respondent, who was working as Joint Works Manager with Ordinance Factory, Itarsi, has been compulsorily retired from the service with effect from 28/12/2018.
The Family Court noted from the evidence that it was within the knowledge of the Applicant No.1 that the Respondent was suffering from mental disorder. She herself had stated in her application as also the evidence that she came to know of such mental disease during her stay with the Respondent. According to her, the Respondent, under the mental attack used to beat and scold her. She has accordingly taken him to the Hospital for treatment.
On the other hand, the Respondent stated that the Applicant No.1 on various occasions used to humiliate him, because of which, he remained in mental depression. The evidence further indicates that the Applicants left the company of the Respondent since the year 2015 and are residing separately.
The marriage between the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent was solemnized in the year 2001. They resided together for a considerable period. The Applicant No.1 has not mentioned the time when she came to know about mental disorder of the Respondent. She has not given the details when she took the Respondent to hospital for treatment. She has not given the details as to how did she and when did she leave the company in the year 2015. She did not lodge any complaint against the Respondent during the period of fourteen years of cohabitation. Thus, the Family Court noted that except for a bald statement that the Respondent, under mental attack, used to beat and scold her, there is no evidence on the point of illtreatment/cruelty caused by the Respondent. No material particulars, as regards the date, day, time and manner of the incident etc. has been stated. Instead, general allegations have been made.
On the point of mental illness, the Family Court has noted that there are numerous documents to support the status. The Respondent was admitted in the Mental Hospital on number of occasions. He was under continuous medication.
The evidence of Dr. Mamarde at Exhibit-68 indicates that the Respondent was admitted in the Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur for a period from 22/1/2018 to 27/3/2018 under the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. He was referred to Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur, from where he was referred to the Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur for further management. Dr. Zode, who examined the Respondent has noted that the Respondent has symptoms which suggests abnormal behaviour, irrelevant talk, violent and abusive behaviour. Total duration of illness, as per the information given, was ten years prior to admission. The symptoms had increased for last one year.
According to the Certificate dated 28/2/2018 issued by the Medical Superintendent, the Respondent was the patient of “Psychosis”. The Doctor noted that the Respondent was manageable in wards. In the cross-examination, he has explained the term ‘manageable’ to mean, he is not violent and taking proper self-care. In cross-examination, the Doctor has admitted that such kind of patient can be easily recovered by taking regular medicines.
The Family Court noted that such patient would require proper care, protection and love. The Applicant No.1, instead of providing such assistance, chose to leave the company of the Respondent, resulting into worsening of his mental condition. Considering the mental status of the Respondent and the vague statement in the evidence on the point of illtreatment, the Family Court held that the Applicants failed to prove that the Respondent has willfully neglected or refused to maintain them.
On the point of income, the Family Court noted that the Respondent was working as Joint Works Manager at Ordinance Factory, Itarsi. The Respondent has been compulsorily retired vide order dated 28/12/2018.
So far as the Applicant No.1 is concerned, she appears to have not pleaded anything about her source of income, but in the cross-examination she admitted that she is M. A. B.Ed. and is running coaching classes. She has further admitted that her son is taking education at Nagpur and is residing in the flat belonging to the Respondent. She has denied the suggestion that the father of the Respondent helped her in getting admission of the Applicant No.2/son and has even helped her financially. Since the Applicant No.1 denied such status, the Respondent, through his Advocate, has placed on record the receipt of payment of Rs. 25,000/- issued by the Ideal Academy of Science in the name of the Applicant No.2, which is dated 19/6/2019. The original receipt, which was lying with the Respondent, was filed. The Family Court, therefore, observed that there is every reason to believe that the said amount has been paid by the father of the Respondent on behalf of the Respondent.
The Family Court further noted that an amount of Rs. 2,01,000/-had been deposited in the account of the Applicant No.1. The payment slips to that effect were filed. The Applicant No.1, however, did not produce copy of her bank pass-book to show that such entries are not effected in the bank pass-book. However, in the written notes of argument, the Applicant No.1 has admitted that some amount was deposited in her account by the father of the Respondent. She has also admitted that she is running coaching classes. The Family Court, therefore, noted that the Applicant No.1 has not come clean before the Court. The Family Court, accordingly, noted that the Applicants failed to prove that they are unable to maintain themselves and further failed to prove that the Respondent has sufficient means to maintain them.
Thus, it appears that the Respondent is suffering from mental illness. He has been made to take retirement from the job. He requires help from his father to perform his day to day activities. The Applicants have left the company of the Respondent sometimes in the year 2015. The Applicant No.1, during the period of her cohabitation with the Respondent, which runs in fourteen years, has not made any grievance of illtreatment or refusal by the Respondent to maintain her or the children. Rather, it appears that the father of the Respondent has rendered necessary assistance to the Applicant No.1 for taking education of the children. The Applicant No.2 is residing at the flat belonging to the Respondent. In the circumstances and considering the fact that the Respondent is dependent on his father, the finding of the Family Court that the Applicants failed to prove that the Respondent had neglected them appears to me to be a justified finding.
On the point of capability of the Applicant No.1 to maintain herself, the evidence indicates that she is highly qualified and is running coaching classes, but has suppressed her true earnings. The Family Court’s finding, therefore, that she has sufficient means to maintain herself is in tune with the evidence led before it. So far as the finding of the Family Court that the Respondent has no means to maintain the Applicants, to my mind, this finding may not be correct, in the sense, the Respondent is getting pension. Nonetheless, the details as to the amount required for his medication is not available on record. In the circumstances, the Respondent may be having means to maintain the Applicants, but question is whether the Applicants have made out a case to that effect. The answer would be certainly in negative, at least against the Applicant No.1.
So far as the Applicant No.2 is concerned, he is residing at the flat belonging to the Respondent. The evidence further indicates that the father of the Respondent has provided financial help for education of the children, which hopefully he will continue to do in future as well.
This Court, being Revisional Court, ought not to substitute its opinion, simply because the different view is possible and unless patent illegality or error is shown on the face of record, which could be said to have lead to miscarriage of justice. The Revisional Court ought not to exercise diligence over the matter. The factual aspects may not be gone into, nor can the evidence re-appreciated unless an extraordinary case is made out, which the Applicants herein have failed. There is, thus, no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Family Court.
At this stage, Mr. Jamal, learned Counsel for the Applicants made a request to remand the matter back. I do not find any reason to accept such request. However, considering the undisputed fact that the Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are children of the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent, a liberty is granted to the Applicant No.1 to file a fresh application, if so desired, to seek maintenance for the children, but by disclosing true and correct status. If the Application is so filed, the trial court will have to consider the status of the Respondent, as regards his mental health and the expenses incurred on that count and the means available at his disposal to maintain children.
With the above observations, Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.