1 revn67.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.67/2014
Anshuman s/o Yashwantrao Pandhare,
aged 37 years, Occ. Government service,
(Gram Sevak), r/o Shivaji Nagar,
New Bus Stop, Pavni, Dist. Bhandara. ....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. Smt. Jayshree w/o Anshuman Pandhare,
(Ku. Jayshree Prabhakar Mende-before
Marriage) aged 31 years, Occ. Household.
2. Ku. Aasawari d/o Anshuman Pandahre,
aged 4 ½ years, Occ. Student, through
guardian mother i.e. non applicant no.1.
Both r/o C/o Prbhakar Mangalji Mende,
MIG-64, Qtr. No. 1/32 Hiwari Nagar,
Bhandara Road, Nagpur.
(Original petitioner nos. 1 and 2
on R.A.) ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. M. Kharkate, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. A. R. Wagh, Advocate for non applicants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 23.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The non applicant no.1 is wife and non applicant no.2 is daughter of the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant is Gram Sevak and is in Government service.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:41:25 :::
2 revn67.14.odt
3. The non applicants were required to file an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance since the applicant neglected them and failed to provide any financial assistance to them for their livelihood. The application filed on behalf of the non applicants under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was registered as Petition No. E-353/2012 and was allotted to the file of Judge Family Court No.3-Nagpur.
4. The applicant-husband entered his appearance in the said proceeding and filed his written statement and contested the claim put forth by the present non applicants. It was the contention of the present applicant before the Court below and even before this Court that the non applicant no.1-wife is working at Nagpur and she was not ready and willing to leave her job and that the applicant was ready to cohabit with the non applicant no.1. It is the non applicant no.1 who has refused to cohabit with him.
The parties entered into the witness box.
5. After Appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge has recorded a finding that the applicant- husband has neglected both the non applicants and has not provided any financial assistance to maintain them. A finding of ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:41:25 ::: 3 revn67.14.odt fact is recorded by the learned Judge that the wife is not having any means to maintain herself or her daughter. Further, on the basis of the salary certificate and other available evidence on record, the learned Judge further recorded a finding of fact that the applicant/husband is having sufficient means to provide maintenance and therefore the learned Judge vide the impugned judgment directed the applicant-husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to non applicant no.1-wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to non applicant no.2-daughter.
6. Though, it was argued on behalf of the applicant by Mr.Kharkhate, the learned counsel for the applicant, that the non applicant no.1-wife is working at Nagpur. He candidly admits that no evidence to that effect was brought on record by the applicant before the trial Court. Further, though it is his submission that he was ready to cohabit with his wife but his wife herself has withdrawn from his company. To a specific query, Mr. Kharkhate gave an answer to the Court that in reply to the application under Section 9, the Hindu Marriage Petition was not filed on the contrary the applicant has filed a petition for divorce against the non applicants-wife.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:41:25 :::
4 revn67.14.odt
7. In that view of the matter, it is crystal clear that it is the applicant who has withdrawn from the company of his wife. Admittedly, the applicant is a Government servant and at the time of evidence his salary was Rs.25,000/-.
8. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of granting maintenance to the non applicants. There is no merit in the revision. The same is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE kahale ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:41:25 :::