Judgment
revn103.17 17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.103 OF 2017
Irshad Ali s/o Akhtar Ali Daroga,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Near Hamidiya Masjid, Mohammadi Mohalla,
Lakkadganj, Akola, Taluka and District Akola. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
Naziya Parveen w/o Irshad Ali Daroga,
Aged about 31 years, Occupation Household,
R/o c/o Samiullah Khan Ahmad Khan,
Near Masjid-E-Kulsum, Sontakke Plot,
Old City Akola,
Taluka and District Akola. ..... Non-applicant.
================================================================
Shri Abdul Subhan, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.H. Anandani, Counsel for the non-applicant.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel Shri Abdul Subhan for the applicant and learned counsel Shri K.H. Anandani for the .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:16:48 ::: Judgment revn103.17 17 2 non-applicant who has very vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and very aggressively supported the impugned judgment.
2. The wife was required to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola since the present applicant, her husband, has neglected her and has failed to maintain her.
3. The application was contested by the present applicant. On the rival pleadings, learned Judge of the Family Court formulated the points that, (i) whether the present non-applicant has proved that the applicant has neglected and refused to maintain her in site of having sufficient means to do so?, and (ii) whether the present non- applicant has proved that she does not have sufficient means to maintain herself? Both the parties entered into the witness .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:16:48 ::: Judgment revn103.17 17 3 box. Learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola vide its judgment and order dated 19.5.2017 partly allowed E-Petition No.10 of 2016 and directed the present applicant to pay amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance of the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application i.e. 22.1.2016.
4. The only point that is raised before this Court by learned counsel Shri Abdul Subhan for the applicant is that the salary of the applicant is Rs.16,362/- and he is required to pay Rs.8000/- towards loan which he has obtained and, therefore, if Rs.4,000/- as directed by learned Judge of the Family Court is given, he will be left with paltry sum and he himself will not be able to maintain him.
5. Learned Judge of the Family Court in paragraph No.21 of the judgment under consideration has very aptly discussed this particular contention made even before her at .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:16:48 ::: Judgment revn103.17 17 4 the time of deciding the petition.
6. Undisputedly, the applicant herein is receiving Rs.16,362/-. Learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly considered while reaching to the net income of the husband that there can only be statutory deductions from the salary then only the next salary will be determined. Learned Judge of the Family Court, in my view, has correctly recorded the finding that amounts of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, which the applicant is submitting that he is repaying towards loan amount, cannot be considered for reaching to the figure of net income.
7. Consequently, no case is made out. The criminal revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:16:48 :::