A WRITTEN ARGUMENT

IN A REVISION APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE IN THE COURT OF THE

1. The present criminal revision application is filed by the applicant against the judgment and
order of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Pune, in Miscellaneous
Application No. 481/2001, passed on

2. That the Miscellaneous Application No. 481/2001 was filed by the opponent (original
applicant) u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance, and the Hon'ble Trial Court
was pleased to pass judgment and order, granting a monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- and also
the cost of the application as Rs. 600/-.

3. That the marriage between the applicant and the opponent took place on At Pune, and they
stayed and cohabited together upto the end of July

4. That in her application, the opponent alleged that the applicant ill treated the opponent
amounting to cruelty and further that the applicant entered to a second marriage with one, Miss
Sonam, and on the strength of such allegations, she contented that the present applicant was not
ready and willing to accept her as his wife and live with her.

5. That it is made abundantly clear during the depositions in the court of law that the present
applicant was and is ready and willing to cohabit with the opponent and to accept her as his wife.
Not only this, but it is also revealed during the depositions in the court of law that the opponent
was always ill from the very beginning, as she was suffering from Asthma, but this fact was
never made known to this applicant beforehand. Not only this, she again denied, in her notice-
reply sent on….., through her advocate, Shri SMP, that the very fact
that she is an Asthmatic patient, and, on the contrary, she said that she has never been a patient of
Asthma, and that such a statement of the present applicant to that effect, as it were, was a
fabricated story on his part.

6. That it is an admitted fact that the present applicant incurred huge expenses on the medical
treatment of the opponent, and also took all possible care of her health during the period of her
stay with him for about nine years.

7. That with the sole intention to harass this applicant, the opponent filed a criminal complaint
bearing No. 1600/2002, in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, and also a
complaint to the superiors of the applicant.
8. That the said criminal complaint No. 1600/2002 was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Pune, on……., and the present applicant was acquitted for the fact that the complainant,
who is the opponent in the present revision application, never remained in the court for pursing
her case, as the same was based false grounds and that there was no substance in it.

9. That as a result of all such harassment, the present applicant had to file a criminal complaint
bearing No. 2400/2002 under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the opponent and her
parents who instigated her in committing such acts of defamation of the applicant. The said
criminal complaint is pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Pune.

10. That the present applicant took special care of the ill health of the opponent, and for this, he
also did not accept the promotion to him to a higher post, in the year…..only for the fact that he
was required to look after the opponent personally.

11. That the Learned Trial Court misunderstood the very fact that it was the opponent who sent a
false notice-reply, dated……to the notice, dated…..of the present applicant, who neither received
nor replied any notice from the opponent.

12. That the evidence of the applicant's witnesses : (i) Shri SNM, (ii) Shri KMT, and (iii) Shri
DGC, is a sheer piece of fabrication, for the reasons that there is a difference of twelve years
between the ages of the first witness and the present applicant, and they did not know each other
on account of their common school, as deposed by the said witness, because after passing out his
SSC Examination and joining his service in Pune, in 1985, the present applicant never stayed at
Junnar and has all along been in Pune only.

13. That all the depositions given by the witnesses are, therefore, completely disproved in the
court of law.

14. That during her depositions in the court of law the opponent repeatedly admitted that this
applicant has no other source of income.

15. That this applicant always looked after the welfare of the opponent in all respects which is
clear from his nomination of the opponent and her sister for his provident fund.

16. That it is the opponent who purposely failed to cohabit with the applicant without any
bonafide cause and simply for the reason of strong instigation of her parents.

17. That the parents of the opponent also made a similar complaint against Shri JSG,, the
husband of the opponent's sister, to his superiors, and that her sister is also not cohabiting with
her husband, which proves the sole intention on the part of the parents of the opponent to
instigate their daughters.

18. That the second marriage of the applicant, as alleged by the opponent, is thoroughly a
fabricated story for which the opponent's father managed to bring such witnesses. Though the
second, Shri KMT, says that the applicant was residing in his building, he admits that no rent
receipts were issued. He further says that he saw the applicant at 9.00 a.m. The applicant is
throughout in the service at the Education Department, and also residing in its residential
quarters. His office Working hours are from 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. Junnar is above 75 km away
from Pune, and, more importantly, the said witness has no building in Junnar which he could let
out. He has, however, a house for his own use. He also admits that he was not knowing the lady,
or her name, or her relation with the opponent, etc. The opponent never stayed at Junnar after
March 1985.

19. That as regards the first witness, Shri SNM, also, his statement about the second marriage
and his own description in that respect are all a sheer piece of fabrication. As per the customs
and usages in the Maratha and such other communities, no marriages are celebrated in temples.
He says that the said temple is about 1000 feet away from the road from where he claims to have
witnessed the ceremony. He also says that there was darkness, as the time was 6.30 p.m. The
temple is 15'X15'. He did not, however, peep in. The temple has only door and closed from all
sides. The door has two feet breadth and the height is such that man is required to bend down
and get into the temple. Here also, he mentioned that he was returning from his land at that time.
In fact, he has no land in Junnar proper where he said to have been returning that evening.

20. That the third witness, Shri DGC is related to the applicant by blood. He just makes some
vague and irrelevant statements which have nothing to do with the actual case.

21. That thus, all the witnesses are unauthentic and should have, therefore, been discarded
outright.

22. That the applicant being a Government servant cannot take up tuitions or such other private
work for earning any extra income.

23. That the witness, Shri VDJ, has clearly said in his deposition in the court of law that they are
on cross terms with 1 he said Shri SNM, and they had also quarrels with him. He deposed that
his sister is sixteen years and is not married.

24. That in the judgment, the Learned Trial Court mentioned that the applicant has taken a
second wife/lady on while the statement of the opponent also vary from time to time, namely
May June and July. This surely adds to nothing but results in anachronism in arriving at a
decision in the matter.

25. That Learned Trial Court rightly held that as regards the second marriage, the evidence is
scanty, and that this point assumes secondary importance. It has also been held that the opponent
has never seen such a second wife, etc. etc. This means that whatever the opponent says is all
based on hearsay. It is further admitted by the Learned Trial Court that the witness, Shri SNM, is
aged 21 years, but he is still unable to give certain points of his information. When he is a fully
grownup man of 21 years, how could he commit such an ambiguity? The fact is that he just
gives out what he has not seen and all such things which are sprouted from his own head and not
from his brain.

26. That the Learned Trial Court adds that the news of a marriage can never be hidden". Such a
logic on its part seems to be a new discovery in so far as its arriving at different dates and gap of
over five months in between the earlier period, i.e. May and the last date alleged, i.e. June

27. That the Learned Trial Court never considered the very important issue on the part of the
applicant that this present applicant was and is always ready and willing to live with the
opponent. He never refused to cohabit with her, and there was, thus, a total failure on the part of
the opponent to cohabit with the present applicant.

28. That for the reasons stated above, this applicant prays that the order of the Hon'ble Trial
Court, in Miscellaneous Application No. 1600/ 2002, be set aside, and the application of the
opponent (original applicant) may very kindly be dismissed with costs.
Pune,
Sd/- xXX

ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT