crra63.08.odt
1 / 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2008
Ashok s/o Mahadeorao Ramatkar
aged 41 yrs., Occ. Service,
r/o Methe Colony, Post Chandur Railway,
Tah. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati. :: APPLICANT
-: Versus :-
Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar,
aged about 37 yrs., Occ. Nil,
r/o Chandra Nagar,
Nagpur. ig :: RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. Y. GANOO, J.
DATED : 25TH SEPT., 2009
Oral Judgment
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties taken up for hearing immediately.
2. The respondent-wife along with her children had filed
application for maintenance in the Family Court at Nagpur being
petition No. E-2643 of 1996. That application was decided on
20/4/2000 and the request for maintenance by the respondent under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
3. It is admitted by and between the parties that compromise
materialised between the applicant and the respondent and they
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:34 :::
crra63.08.odt
2 / 5
started staying together w.e.f. 12/9/2003. They stayed for about six
months and thereafter the respondent left the house of the applicant
on the ground that applicant had treated the respondent with cruelty.
The applicant had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad. In the said petition
maintenance was awarded in favour of the respondent. The said
petition came to be dismissed on 10/7/2006. It is noticed that the
respondent, in the year 2006 had filed an application for maintenance
under Section 125 Cri. P.C. in the Family Court being petition No. E-80
of 2006. This application was filed because the respondent was treated
with cruelty after she has joined the applicant pursuant to the
compromise which had materialised on 12/9/2003. The parties led
evidence before the Court and the learned Judge of the Family Court
came to the conclusion that the applicant had treated the applicant
with cruelty, and therefore, the respondent was entitled to
maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the
income of the applicant and decided the application and by order
dated 09/01/2008 granted maintenance in favour of the respondent to
the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. March, 2006. This order
dated 09/01/2008 is challenged in this revision application.
4. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. The
evidence on record clearly indicates that the applicant had treated the
respondent with cruelty after she had joined the company of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:34 :::
crra63.08.odt
3 / 5
applicant. Even, conduct on the part of the applicant clearly indicates
that he wanted to maintain his wife and as such proceedings for
restitution of conjugal rights were filed by the applicant which came to
be dismissed for default wherein order of maintenance was granted in
favour of the respondent.
5. On consideration of the entire record, the learned Judge of
the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent in the sum of
Rs. 1,000/-.
6. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Khamborkar for the
applicant. He tried to point out on the basis of evidence that the
applicant had not treated with cruelty. So far as this aspect is
concerned, I am not inclined to accept this argument. There is a
positive finding given by the learned Judge of the Family Court that
cross examination of the respondent is not shattered so far as the
allegation of cruelty is concerned. If this is so, it is not open for the
applicant to say that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed
wrong while recording affirmative finding on the point of cruelty.
7. Insofar as the question of maintenance is concerned,
according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, at the time when
the evidence was being recorded, the applicant was not getting
sufficient money in his hand and the figure quoted in the judgment
appears to be not proper. According to him, if his income itself was
insufficient to pay maintenance to the respondent as well as to the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:34 :::
crra63.08.odt
4 / 5
children, the order of maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- was on a higher side.
This, of course, was stated without prejudice to his argument that no
order of maintenance could have been granted.
8. I have considered the rival contentions. In my view, the
stand taken by the learned Judge of the Family Court so as to fix the
maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- is reasonable. The applicant is working as
Tracer in Public Works department of Government of Maharashtra. It
appears that the applicant is contributing to the Provident Fund in
excess of his responsibility. This conduct on the part of the petitioner
cannot be accepted. In my view, a person who earns by way of salary
has to adjust his savings keeping in view the minimum requirements of
his wife and children. It is not open for a husband to keep investing
money in various schemes and then claim to have no sufficient money
to look after the family. In my view, the figure of Rs. 1,000/- per
month towards maintenance is reasonable and no interference is
required.
9. A faint attempt was made by the learned Advocate for the
applicant that the respondent has her source of income. This cannot be
accepted because before the learned Judge of the Family Court no
evidence whatsoever in this respect has been produced. Surely, if
something was placed before the learned Judge of the Family Court,
he would have considered it in the proper perspective. To that extent
the argument is rejected.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:34 :::
crra63.08.odt
5 / 5
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision application
cannot be granted and rule is required to be discharged.
11. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate for
the applicant seeks liberty to apply for reduction in the amount of
maintenance. In my view no such liberty is required to be granted. It
is open for the applicant to attend to the matter as he may be advised.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
wwl
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:07:34 :::