Bombay High Court
Mangesh S/O Rameshchandra ... vs Smt. Shalini W/O Mangesh Chawake ... on 11 July, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
revn159.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 159 OF 2015
Mangesh s/o Rameshchandra Chawake
aged about 43 years, Occ.: Private Service,
r/o c/o Prakash Kakde, Hind Nagar,
Near Ganesh Temple,
Wardha. .... APPLICANT.
VERSUS
1. Smt. Shalini w/o Mangesh Chawake
(Shalini d/o Rambhau Laxane)
aged 37 years, Occ.: L.I.C. Agent.
2. Ku. Palak d/o Mangesh Chawake,
aged 7 years, minor, through mother,
guardian no. 1.
Both r/o c/o Rambhau Laxane,
Qr.No. 89/3, Somwari,
Sakkardara, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS.
Shri Rahul D. Hajare Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri N.S. Vyas & S.K. Patil Advocates for respondent no. 1.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 11.07.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Admit. There is no need to call for record
and proceedings as the relevant documents are already annexed
to this revision application.
revn159.15
2. Heard finally by consent of parties.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
impugned order is erroneous and has been passed in breach of
settled principles of law. He submits that the learned Principal
Judge of the Family Court has not at all considered appropriately
the evidence brought on record by the applicant regarding
income being earned by respondent no. 1. He also submits that
it is well settled law that when wife has been shown to be earning
income, sufficient to maintain herself, she ought to be held as not
entitled for maintenance. In support, he referred to me a
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of Patna High
Court in the case of Dinesh Sharma v. Rupa Rani Sharma
reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 469.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
impugned order is neither erroneous nor perverse and, therefore,
no interference is called for.
5. On going through the impugned order and on perusal
of the documents annexed, I find that there is no merit in the
argument of learned counsel for the applicant. It is true that a
wife, who has been shown to be earning sufficient income, is not
entitled for maintenance as held in the case of Dinesh Sharma,
supra. In the instant case, the facts show it to be otherwise. Here, the
revn159.15
learned Principal Judge has considered properly the evidence
available on record and has found that respondent no. 1 has been
earning nominal income of just about Rs.700/- per month from
her agency of L.I.C. Policy. It is an admitted fact that respondent
no.1 is not having a permanent job and is dependent upon the
insurance policies being obtained from her by various customers
of Life Insurance Corporation of India. Some times she may get
good business and some time not, and that is the reason why on
the basis of the facts placed on record the learned Principal Judge
has calculated the income of respondent no. 1 to be of about
Rs.700/- per month. With such an income and with a growing
daughter, who is receiving education in a convent school, any
wife would be looking upon her husband to provide some succor
to herself and to her daughter. On the other hand, the applicant
is having a permanent job with a private company where he is
working as Senior Supervisor (Accounts). His salary has been
considered by the learned Principal Judge and taking into account
the same, the learned Principal Judge has quantified monthly
maintenance amount to be of Rs.3,000/- for respondent no. 1 and
Rs.1,000/- for respondent no. 2. No impropriety or illegality in
such a quantification or the approach adopted by the learned
Principal Judge could be found. There is no merit in this revision
revn159.15
and it deserves to be dismissed.
Revision application stands dismissed.
JUDGE
/TA/
