Bombay High Court
Janglu Alias Jagdish S/O Jagobaji ... vs Sau. Usha D/O Daulat Turankar on 18 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
revn.36.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 36 OF 2015
Shri Jagdish S/o Jagobaji Aapturkar,
Aged about 62 years,Occ-Service,
R/o Plot No.691, Ishwar Tuitin Classes,
behind Kedare Nursing Home,
Ashirwad nagar,Nagpur. ..... APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
Sau. Usha D/o Daulat Turankar,
Aged about 59 years,
R/o Plot no.48, Saibabanagar,
behind Aamrapali Hotel,Kharbi Road,
Nagpur. ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt.Manju M. Ghatode, Advocate for applicant.
Smt.Sayli V. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JULY 18 ,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2] Heard learned counsel for applicant and respondent
in extenso.
3] By the present revision the applicant is challenging the
the judgment and order dated 29/01/2015 passed by learned
Judge, Family Court No.4,Nagpur in Petition No.PE-149/2011.
4] The Petition No.PE-149/2011 was filed by the
respondent under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for enhancement of the maintenance amount.
5] The marriage between the applicant and respondent
was performed in May-1974. A Petition No.E-3/2007 for
maintenance was filed by the respondent was disposed of in view
of the settlement before the councilor of the Family Court. As per
the said settlement the respondent was entitled Rs. 600/- per
month by way of maintenance from March-2007. Though the said
order was passed by way of settlement the applicant was very
irregular in making the payment and therefore the respondent
was required to file recovery proceedings to recover the arrears of
maintenance amount.
6] It is further stated in the application under Section 127
of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the present applicant is
residing with his second wife and is having three daughters and
one son from the said marriage and is having handsome income of
Rs. 50,000/- from the agricultural land at Dhanala and rent
derived from the house property. It is further stated that the
applicant is serving in Ordnance Factory and is getting salary at
the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month as per 6th Pay Commission.
She claims revision in the maintenance amount in view of the
price hike in the essential goods and also increase of applicant's
salary. Therefore, she claims that she is entitled for Rs. 3,000/-
per month.
7] The application was contested by the applicant by filing
reply. He admitted the marriage with non-applicant however as
per the reply customary divorce took place in between them on
25/1/1976. It is also stated that on attaining the age of
superannuation he is retired from the service and he is getting
pension of Rs. 6125/- only. He submitted for dismissal of the
application.
8] The applicant entered into witness box. Respondent
also examined herself. During the cross-examination it is brought
on record that he stood retired from the Ordnance Factory in the
year 2010 and he has received retirement benefits. He also
admitted that his all three daughters are married and his son is
residing separately and is earning for himself.
9] The learned Judge of the Court below found that in
view of the fact that applicant is getting Rs. 7,000/- per month as
pension and there is no dependent upon him, the learned Court
below has directed that in addition to the maintenance amount of
Rs. 600/- per month which the respondent is entitled to receive,
directed the applicant to pay in addition to the extent of Rs.
1900/- per month from the date of order i.e. 29/1/2015.
10] Looking to the quantum of pension and quantum of
rise given in the maintenance amount I see no reason to interfere
with the judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court.
Hence, revision is dismissed.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
PUK
