revn.33.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 33 of 2016
Anand S/o Subhash Gaichi,
Aged about 25 years,Occ-Private,
R/o Walmik Nar, Near Ram Mandir,
Chikhali,Tah-Chikhali,Districit-Buldhana. ..... APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
Sau. Priti W/o Anand Gaichi,
Aged about 21 years,Occ-Household,
R/o-C/o Ramesh Bhajan Untwal,
Rameshnagar, Dabki Road, Akola,
Tahsil and District-Akola. ... RESONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.P.Chaware, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri G.B.Gandhi,Advocate for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :-JULY 13 ,2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant-husband submitted that learned Judge of the Family Court has erroneously granted application filed on behalf of the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .It is also his ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:21:57 ::: revn.33.16 2 submissions that the respondent-wife is getting Rs. 1500/- per month by way of maintenance in the proceeding filed by her under the Protection Of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005.
3. The learned counsel for the non-applicant-wife has fairly stated that non-applicant-wife is getting Rs.1500/- per month by way of maintenance in the proceeding filed by her under the Protection Of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005.
4. The facts of this case show that according to the wife it is the applicant who has not discharged his functions as a husband with the result, the marriage between them was not consummated. On the contrary, it is the case of the applicant that wife is responsible. According to him the wife was only interested with the salaried person.
5. Though, it is the case of the applicant that the wife has withdrawn her company from the applicant no notice for cohabitation was issued by the applicant. Further, though it was ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:21:57 ::: revn.33.16 3 the case of the applicant that company was withdrawn by the wife he did not file any proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. That shows that the contentions in that behalf as raised by the applicants are not well founded and the learned Judge of the Family Court has correctly assessed and evaluated the evidence in her judgment as could be seen from the paragraph no.21 onwards.
6. The learned Judge of the Family Court also noticed that the applicant has withheld the information from the Court in respect of his employment or his capacity to earn his livelihood. The learned Judge after assessing the available material on record reached to the conclusion that the non-applicant-wife is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the application. I see no reason to disturb the findings of the facts recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court in her well reasoned and articulated judgment. However,the modification in respect of the quantum can be allowed. In view of the fact that non-applicant is already getting Rs. 1,500/- per month way of of maintenance from the proceeding filed under the Protection Of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 in that ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:21:57 ::: revn.33.16 4 view of the matter the maintenance amount granted by the learned Judge of the Family Court at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month scales down to Rs. 3,500/- per month from the date of the application. It is needless to mention that applicant to continue to pay Rs. 1,500/- by way of maintenance under Protection Of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005. A statement is made by the applicant that the applicant has cleared all arrears under the Protection Of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 and the said statement is accepted.
7. The applicant shall deposit the arrears calculated at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month from the date of the application within a period of three weeks from today and the amount will be deposited in the Court of learned Judge,Family Court, Akola and the non-applicant-wife will be entitled to withdraw the said amount.
8. It is also made clear that the non-applicant will be at liberty to file application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alteration of the maintenance amount if on demonstrating I) change of circumstances II) change of her need ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:21:57 ::: revn.33.16 5 and III) on other attending circumstances which are required to decide the application under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with the law.
With these observations the rule is made absolute without costs.
The revision is partly allowed.
JUDGE kitey ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:21:57 :::