Mohd. Rafique S/O Ibrahim Noor vs Akila Bano W/O Mohd. Rafique Noor
2016 Latest Caselaw 3682 Bom

                                                           1                                    judg.apl 125.15.odt 




                                                                                                           
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                                
                                       Criminal Application (APL) No.125 of 2015




                                                                               
                   Mohd. Rafique s/o Ibrahim Noor,
                   Aged about 30 years, Occ.-Business,
                   R/o.-Opp. Nehru Nagar Bus Stand,
                   Ghatanji, Tahsil Ghatanji, District Yavatmal.               .... Applicant.




                                                              
                   Versus
                                        
                   Akila Bano w/o Mohd. Rafique Noor,
                                       
                   Aged  about 29 years, Occ.Nil,
                   R/o. C/o.-Mohd. Arif Zangada,
                   Maskasath, Telipura, Itwari, Nagpur,
         


                   District Nagpur.
      



                   (Corrected Address)

                   Akila Bano w/o Mohd. Rafique Noor,                    (Amended as per 





                   Aged  about 29 years, Occ.Nil,                                Court's order 7-10-15)
                   R/o. C/o.-Arifbhai Zangada, Maskasath Chowk,
                   Supari Market, Opp. Jain Mandir,
                   Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.                                   .... Respondent.





                   Shri  M.I. Dhatrak, Adv for Applicant.
                   Shri  S. Joshi, Non-applicant.

                    Coram :  S.B. Shukre, J.

Dated : 08 th July, 2016.

                                                

                   ORAL JUDGMENT



                                                            2                                    judg.apl 125.15.odt 




                                                                                                           

Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the applicant

and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

2] It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that

the impugned order is illegal and perverse as it is based upon the

conjectures and surmises. It is submitted that the applicant does not

reside at Nagpur and it is presumed by the learned Judge of the

Family Court that the non-applicant is residing at Nagpur and that is

the reason why the learned Judge found maintenance amount of

Rs. 3000/- as reasonable. According to the learned Counsel for the

respondent, even if it is assumed that the applicant does not reside at

Nagpur and has made a place like Ghatanji, a tahsil place, as her

residence, still the amount of Rs. 3000/- granted as monthly

maintenance cannot be seen as exorbitant.

3] Considering the fact that the applicant is an able-bodied person

and now-a-days, there has been steep rise in prices of food grains, the

amount of Rs. 3000/- per month would be certainly required for

anyone to maintain oneself, whether living in urban area or village.

From an able- bodied person like the applicant, law expects that he

would be in a position to earn at least about Rs. 300/- per day. From

this view point, assumptions made by the learned Judge of the

Family Court cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. I, therefore,

3 judg.apl 125.15.odt

see no illegality or incorrectness in the impugned order.

4] The application deserves to be rejected and stands rejected.

JUDGE

Deshmukh