Irshad Ali S/O. Akhtar Ali Daroga vs Naziyaparveen W/O. Irshad Ali ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9864 Bom

Judgment

                                                                   revn103.17 17

                                        1

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

                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.103 OF 2017

Irshad Ali s/o Akhtar Ali Daroga,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Near Hamidiya Masjid, Mohammadi Mohalla,
Lakkadganj, Akola, Taluka and District Akola.  ..... Applicant.

                                 ::   VERSUS   ::

Naziya Parveen w/o Irshad Ali Daroga,
Aged about 31 years, Occupation Household, 
R/o c/o Samiullah Khan Ahmad Khan,
Near Masjid-E-Kulsum, Sontakke Plot,
Old City Akola, 
Taluka and District Akola.                         ..... Non-applicant.

================================================================
           Shri Abdul Subhan, Counsel for the applicant.
           Shri K.H. Anandani, Counsel for the non-applicant.
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE    : DECEMBER 20, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.              Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel Shri Abdul Subhan for

the applicant and learned counsel Shri K.H. Anandani for the

.....2/-

Judgment

revn103.17 17

non-applicant who has very vehemently opposed the prayer

made by learned counsel for the applicant and very

aggressively supported the impugned judgment.

2. The wife was required to file an application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned

Judge of the Family Court at Akola since the present

applicant, her husband, has neglected her and has failed to

maintain her.

3. The application was contested by the present

applicant. On the rival pleadings, learned Judge of the

Family Court formulated the points that, (i) whether the

present non-applicant has proved that the applicant has

neglected and refused to maintain her in site of having

sufficient means to do so?, and (ii) whether the present non-

applicant has proved that she does not have sufficient means

to maintain herself? Both the parties entered into the witness

.....3/-

Judgment

revn103.17 17

box. Learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola vide its

judgment and order dated 19.5.2017 partly allowed E-Petition

No.10 of 2016 and directed the present applicant to pay

amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance of the

non-applicant from the date of filing of the application i.e.

22.1.2016.

4. The only point that is raised before this Court by

learned counsel Shri Abdul Subhan for the applicant is that

the salary of the applicant is Rs.16,362/- and he is required to

pay Rs.8000/- towards loan which he has obtained and,

therefore, if Rs.4,000/- as directed by learned Judge of the

Family Court is given, he will be left with paltry sum and he

himself will not be able to maintain him.

5. Learned Judge of the Family Court in paragraph

No.21 of the judgment under consideration has very aptly

discussed this particular contention made even before her at

.....4/-

Judgment

revn103.17 17

the time of deciding the petition.

6. Undisputedly, the applicant herein is receiving

Rs.16,362/-. Learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly

considered while reaching to the net income of the husband

that there can only be statutory deductions from the salary

then only the next salary will be determined. Learned Judge

of the Family Court, in my view, has correctly recorded the

finding that amounts of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, which the

applicant is submitting that he is repaying towards loan

amount, cannot be considered for reaching to the figure of net

income.

7. Consequently, no case is made out. The criminal

revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-