Sameer Khan S/O Zaheer Khan vs Maher Afroz W/O Sameer Khan And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1661 Bom

                                                                        revn95.14


                                          1




                                                                          
                                                  
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                           Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2014




                                                 
     Sameer Khan son of Zaheer Khan,
     aged about 33 years,
     resident of New Town,
     besides Matoshri Complex,




                                       
     Chandni Chowk,
     Badnera, Tq. & Distt.   
     Amravati.                                       .....           Applicant.
                            
                                       Versus

     1.     Maher Afroz wife of Sameer
            Khan,
            aged about 29 years,
      


     2.     Asfiya daughter of Sameer
   



            Khan,
            aged about 3 years,
            [minor through her guardian-
            mother],





            both the non-applicants are
            residents of C/o Late Abdul
            Subhan, Aseer Colony,
            behind Salty Factory, Walgaon
            Road, Amravati.                        ..... Non-Applicants.





                                      *****
     Shri S. Zia Qazi, Adv., for the Applicant.

     Shri V.S. Girmkar, Adv., for Non-applicants.

                                        *****




    ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:03:24 :::
                                                                            revn95.14


                                            2




                                                                             
                                                     
                                     CORAM :         Z. A. HAQ, J.

                                     Date       :    20th April, 2016




                                                    
     ORAL JUDGMENT:




                                         

01. Heard Shri S. Zia Qazi, learned Adv., for the Applicant and

Shri V.S. Girmakar, learned Adv., for the Non-applicants.

02. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

03. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the Family

Court directing him to pay Rs.1,500-00 per month to the non-

applicants towards the maintenance, and Rs. 3,000/- towards the

expenses.

04. The submission on behalf of the Applicant is that the non-

applicants had filed proceedings under the provisions of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which an order is passed

on 16th July, 2011 directing the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month

to the non-applicant no.1 [wife] and Rs.750/- per month to the Non-

applicant no.2 [minor daughter] towards maintenance and the Family

Court has overlooked this order while passing the impugned order.

revn95.14

The learned Adv., has argued that once the liability of applicant to pay

the amount of maintenance and the entitlement of the Non-applicants

to receive the amount of maintenance is determined by a competent

Court in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the application filed by the Non-

applicants under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not

maintainable

jurisdiction.

and, ig therefore, the impugned order is without

05. Shri Giramakar, learned Adv., for the Non-applicants, has

submitted that there is no bar to file proceedings under Section 125 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, though the earlier application filed under

the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005, was decided. It is further submitted that the applicant is not

regularly paying the amount of maintenance as per the order passed

under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005. The learned Adv., has further stated that the amount of

maintenance granted by the Family Court, in addition to the amount of

maintenance granted under the provisions of Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is proper and it cannot be said that

it is exorbitant. It is prayed that the Revision be dismissed.

revn95.14

06. Considering the facts recorded by the Family Court in

Paragraph 6 of the impugned order regarding the income of the

applicant, in my view, interest of justice would be subserved by

passing the following order:-

[a] The applicant shall pay Rs.1,000-00 [rupees one thousand only] per month to the Non-applicant

No.1, and Rs.750-00 [rupees seven hundred fifty only] per month to the Non-applicant no.2 as per

the order passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 47 of 2011 on 16th July, 2011.

[b] In addition, the applicant shall pay Rs.500/-

[rupees five hundred only] per month to the Non- applicant No.1 and Rs.250/- [rupees two hundred fifty only] per month to the Non-applicant No.2

from 1st May, 2014, i.e., after the impugned order came to be passed by the Family Court.

[c] The Applicant shall pay Rs.3,000/- [rupees three

thousand only] to the Non-applicant No.1 towards the expenses.

[d] The impugned order is modified as above.

[e] Criminal Revision is partly allowed in the above

revn95.14

terms.

[f] In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own

costs.

07. Considering the nature of claim of the wife and minor

daughter, the legal issue raised by the learned Adv., for the husband is

not dealt with and is left open for consideration in some other case.

Judge

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|