Bombay High Court
Sau. Suwarna Prashant Mhaiskar vs Prashant Chandramani Mhaiskar on 13 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 revn35.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.35/2014
Sau. Suwarna Prashant Mhaiskar,
aged 23 Yrs., Occu. Nil,
R/o Bharkas (Kilmithi), Tah. Hingna,
Distt. Nagpur. ..
Applicant.
..Versus..
Prashant Chandramani Mhaiskar,
aged 26 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Helodi, Tq. Selu, Distt. Wardha,
(Post Dahegaon). ..Non-applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate for the non-applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 13.4.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri U.J. Deshpande, advocate for the applicant and Shri Mahesh Rai,
advocate for the non-applicant.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The applicant (wife) has filed this revision application challenging the order
passed by the Family Court rejecting her claim for maintenance.
2 revn35.14
4. The following facts are undisputed:
That the marriage between the applicant (wife) and non-applicant (husband)
was solemnized on 25th May, 2009, that since last more than five years the applicant
and non-applicant are living separately, that since 6 th February, 2010 the applicant is
residing with the parents and the applicant and non-applicant are not having any
issue.
5.
The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code praying that the non-applicant be directed to pay an amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. According to the applicant, the
non-applicant is having six acre of agricultural land and is earning substantially from
it and he has no liability of maintaining anybody.
The non-applicant opposed the claim of the applicant contending that he is
doing labour work and is earning about Rs.2,000/- per month. According to the
non-applicant, the applicant is living separately on her own accord without any
reason and as she has voluntarily abandoned the company of the non-applicant, she
is not entitled for any maintenance from the non-applicant.
6. The Family Court proceeded with the matter and by the impugned order
rejected the claim of the applicant for maintenance recording that the applicant has
failed to prove that there is justification for living separately from the non-applicant.
3 revn35.14
The Family Court has recorded that the applicant has failed to prove that the
non-applicant is having agricultural land. The Family Court has recorded that the
evidence shows that the non-applicant is working as labour and earning Rs.2,400/-
per month and the applicant is also working as labour and earning Rs.2,000/- per
month. The above findings are recorded by the Family Court considering the
evidence on the record including the evidence of witness examined on behalf of the
applicant.
7. With the assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties, I
have examined the documents placed on the record. Though the learned advocate
appearing for the applicant has submitted that the Family Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on the record, he is not able to point out any perversity in
the findings recorded by the Family Court. In the cross-examination of witness No.2,
examined on behalf of the applicant it, has come on the record that the applicant is
not ready to cohabit with the non-applicant and she is residing with her parents on
her own accord. This witness has further stated that the applicant is working as
labour and getting Rs.2,000/- per month. The applicant herself in her
cross-examination has stated that she is not ready to join the company of
non-applicant though he is willing to take her back to the matrimonial house. In the
cross-examination, the applicant has stated that she has not filed any document on
the record to show that the non-applicant is having agricultural land.
4 revn35.14
I find that the Family Court has properly considered the evidence on the
record and the findings recorded by the Family Court are based on proper
appreciation of the material on the record. I do not see any reason to interfere with
the impugned order
Shri U.J. Deshpande, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
the non-applicant (husband) is under an obligation to maintain the applicant (wife)
and only because the applicant is earning something by working perforce, the
non-applicant cannot be absolved of his liability of maintaining the applicant. In
support of this submission, the learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in
the case of Chaturbhuj V/s. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316 and the judgment
given in the case of Shamima Farooqui V/s. Shahid Khan reported in 2015(4) SCALE 521.
The above referred judgments do not assist the applicant in view of the facts of the
present case and the findings recorded by the Family Court that the applicant is
living separately without any justification and the earnings of the applicant and non-
applicant are almost same.
In view of the above, the revision application is dismissed. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
