Bombay High Court
Sidhharth Madhukar Meshram vs Sau. Suchitra Sidhharth Meshram ... on 1 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 revn80.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2015
Sidhharth Madhukar Meshram,
aged about 43 years, Occu.: Kerosene
Wholesale Dealer, R/o. Ramaji Ambedkar
Nagar, Daula Meti, Amravati Road,
Nagpur, District : Nagpur.
.... APPLICANT.
// VERSUS //
1. Sau. Suchitra Sidhharth Meshram,
Aged about 40 years, Occu.: Household,
2. Rahul S/o. Sidhharth Meshram,
Aged 13 years, Education,
3. Survesh S/o. Sidhharth Meshram,
Age 11 years, Occ.: Education,
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minors
through Guardian respondent No.1
All R/o. New Deshmukh File, Akola,
Akola, Tq. and District : Akola.
.... NON-APPLICANTS
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri S.D.Malke, Advocate for Applicant.
Shri P. S.Gawai, Advocate for Non-applicants.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : APRIL 01, 2016.
Judgment 2 revn80.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the
Family Court directing the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,500/-
per month to the non-applicant No.1 (wife) and Rs.2,000/- per month
to each of the non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 (minor sons). The Family
Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- to the non-
applicants towards the cost of the application.
4. Shri S.D. Malke, learned advocate for the applicant has
submitted that the non-applicant No.1 (wife) is educated and has
qualifications of B.P. Ed., M.P.Ed. and is working as Physical Training
Instructor. It is further submitted that the applicant had filed petition
praying for decree for restitution of conjugal rights, in which decree for
restitution of conjugal rights is passed on 13th December, 2012 and the
non-applicant No.1 has not complied with the decree and therefore, the
applicant has filed execution proceedings which are pending. It is
Judgment 3 revn80.15.odt
submitted that the Family Court has not properly considered these
aspects and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is
further submitted that the Family Court has committed an error in
directing the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to
the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to each of the non-applicant
Nos. 2 and 3 without there being anything on the record to show that
the applicant has capacity to pay the above amount. It is submitted
that though the applicant is granted licence of Kerosene Dealership, he
has given it to some person and is getting Rs.5,000/- per month from
him in lieu of that and in these facts, the directions given by the Family
Court to pay the amount of maintenance are not proper.
5. The learned advocate for the non-applicants has supported
the impugned order.
6. It is undisputed that the applicant is holding licence of
Dealership of Kerosene. In the cause title of the application, the
applicant has himself shown that he is 'Wholesale Kerosene Dealer'.
The Family Court has recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order
that the applicant has admitted that he is earning commission of about
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month.
Judgment 4 revn80.15.odt
7. Considering the above facts, it cannot be said that the
directions of the Family Court requiring the applicant to pay Rs.2,500/-
per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to each
of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are unsustainable. I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The learned trial Judge
has properly considered all the relevant aspects. I see no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.
8. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
