Bombay High Court
Sk. Akram S/O Sk. Yasin Mansuri vs Smt. Salma Parvin Sk. Akram And ... on 17 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn152.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.152/2014
Sk. Akram s/o Sk. Yasin Mansuri,
aged 32 years, Occ. Driver,
c/o Narayan Nagar, Nagpur Road,
Tiosa, Tq. Tiosa, Dist. Amravati. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. Smt. Salma Parvin Shaikh Akram Mansoori,
aged 27 years, Occ. Housewife.
2. Ku. Asifa Parvini d/o Shaik Akram Mansoori,
aged 4 years, Minor by guardian through
her mother, applicant no.1.
Both r/o Sk. Harun Sk. Pyaru Mansuri,
Chara Bazar, Masanganj, Itwari Bazar,
Amravati, Tq. Dist. Amravati. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for applicant.
None for the non applicants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 17.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
The order in question in the present revision is an order
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amravati in
Petition E-115/2012 dated 27.08.2016 by which the Court below
granted the application in part filed by non applicant nos. 1 and 2
2 revn152.14.odt
under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. thereby granting maintenance in
their favour at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month.
2. The only contention that is raised before this Court at
the time of hearing is that the observation made by the learned
Judge of the Court below in paragraph 19 is erroneous. He
submitted that he is not the owner of Madina Fabricator Welding
Works, Tiosa. He is only a driver earning Rs.3,000/- per month.
He relied on a judgment reported in Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai;
(2008) 2 SCC 316.
3. From the submissions made on behalf of the learned
counsel for the applicant, it is clear that the applicant is disputing
only the quantum of the maintenance. According to him, he is not
the owner of Madina Fabricator Welding Works and he is only a
driver. The learned Judge, while deciding the matter found that
the notice of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was
served upon the applicant at Madina Fabricator Welding Works,
Tiosa.
4. When the applicant states that he is only a driver, he
earns Rs.3,000/- per month, the maintenance amount is excessive,
he was under bounden duty to give material particulars of his
3 revn152.14.odt
employment in his reply. Paragraph 7 of the reply in the written
statement to the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is
evasive one. The applicant has not given any details about his
employment such as with whom he is employed as a driver.
Nothing is placed on record to show that he earns Rs.3,000/- per
month by way of salary from the employer.
5. Since the applicant has failed to discharge the burden
on him, in my view, the Court below has not committed any
mistake while considering the pleadings and evidence of the non
applicant while granting maintenance. There is no merit in the
revision. The same is therefore rejected.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
