Rajesh Wasudeo Mohan vs Sou. Sandhana Rajesh Mohan
2017 Latest Caselaw 5647 Bom

Judgment

                                                                    revn128.16 2

                                        1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2016

Rajesh Wasudeo Mohan,
Aged about 39 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Agnishaman Department,
Mahanagar Palika, Near Dafrin
Hospital, Walcoat Compound,
Amravati, Taluka and District Amravati.      ..... Applicant.

                                 ::   VERSUS   ::

Sou. Sadhana Rajesh Mohan,
Aged about 33 years, Occupation Household,
R/o C/o Bhimrao Haribhau Shirsat,
R/o Shanti Nagar, Akola,
Taluka and District Akoa.                     ..... Non-applicant.

================================================================
           Shri C.A. Babrekar, Counsel for the applicant.
           Shri R.D. Karode, Counsel for the non-applicant.
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE    : AUGUST 4, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

.....2/-

Judgment

revn128.16 2

2. The applicant husband is challenging judgment

and order passed by learned Judge of Family Court at

Akola dated 22.4.2016, by which learned Judge partly

allowed the said petition filed on behalf of the non-

applicant wife under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and enhanced maintenance from

Rs.1,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month.

3. It is not in dispute that initially an application

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at

Akola, was filed by the non-applicant wife claiming

maintenance from the applicant husband. Vide order

dated 31.5.2007, maintenance was awarded in favour of

the non-applicant wife at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per

month. A subsequent application under Section 127 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enhancement

.....3/-

Judgment

revn128.16 2

of maintenance was filed before the Family Court at

Akola bearing Petition No.E-441 of 2009 and learned

Judge of Family Court at Akola on 24.9.2010 enhanced

the maintenance amount from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1,500/-.

4. In the year 2015, another application under

Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

enhancement was filed and the same was registered as

Petition No.E-22 of 2015, which is partly allowed by the

impugned judgment.

5. Only contention that is urged before this Court,

during the course of arguments on behalf of the

applicant husband by his learned counsel, is that the

maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.4,000/- is an

excessive since the applicant husband is taking salary to

his own Rs.5,671/-. No other point was urged.

6. It is not in dispute that the applicant/husband

.....4/-

Judgment

revn128.16 2

works as a Fire Man in the Fire Department of Amravati

Municipal Corporation. His salary certificates for the

months of December 2015 and November 2015 are

available on record at Exhibits 34 and 35. The said

salary certificates show that his gross salary is

Rs.22,755/-. As per the applicant husband, deduction

from his salary is Rs.17,104/-.

7. There is a deduction of Rs.6,000/- per month by

way of repayment of load taken from a Society. There is

nothing available on record to show the reason

requiring the applicant husband to obtain loan which

required himself to repay at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per

month.

8. In that view of the matter, I concur with the

findings recorded by Court below that it is quite

possible that the applicant husband has taken this huge

.....5/-

Judgment

revn128.16 2

loan in order to show that ultimately he receives paltry

amount in his hand. There is also a deduction of

Rs.5,484/- towards Life Insurance Corporation Premium.

Thus, it is clear that deductions to the tune of Rs.11,481/-

per month are not statutorily available for the applicant

husband for calculating his net income. Thus, the Court

below has rightly reached to the conclusion that the net

income of the applicant husband could be held

Rs.16,000/- approximately. Further, the applicant

husband himself has admitted that his dearness

allowance increases twice a year viz. in the months of

January and July. Further, there is nothing available

on record to show that he was required to spend

Rs.1,200/- for her mother as claimed by him.

9. In my view, learned Judge of the Court below

has correctly evaluated the submission made before the

.....6/-

Judgment

revn128.16 2

said Court about payment of monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-.

It is not in dispute that the non-applicant wife is not

working anywhere. It is also not in dispute that the

house, in which the non-applicant wife resides, consists

of only one room and that is also in the locality where

mostly poor persons reside. Therefore, in my view,

learned Judge of the Court below has correctly recorded

the finding that there could be a typing mistake in the

affidavit of landlady Mrs Telgote that she receives

Rs.4,000/- from the non-applicant wife by way of rent.

10. No case is made out. Hence, the criminal revision

application is rejected. Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-