Anshuman S/O Yashwantrao ... vs Smt. Jayashree W/O Anshuman ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3603 Bom

                                                    1                       revn67.14.odt

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

                      CRIMINAL REVISION NO.67/2014

      Anshuman s/o Yashwantrao Pandhare,
      aged 37 years, Occ. Government service,
      (Gram Sevak), r/o Shivaji Nagar,
      New Bus Stop, Pavni, Dist. Bhandara. ....APPLICANT
                        ...V E R S U S...

 1. Smt. Jayshree w/o Anshuman Pandhare,
    (Ku. Jayshree Prabhakar Mende-before
    Marriage) aged 31 years, Occ. Household.

 2. Ku. Aasawari d/o Anshuman Pandahre,
    aged 4 ½ years, Occ. Student, through
    guardian mother i.e. non applicant no.1.

      Both r/o C/o Prbhakar Mangalji Mende,
      MIG-64, Qtr. No. 1/32 Hiwari Nagar,
      Bhandara Road, Nagpur.

      (Original petitioner nos. 1 and 2
      on R.A.)                                                ...NON APPLICANTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. B. M. Kharkate, Advocate for applicant.
 Mr. A. R. Wagh, Advocate for non applicants. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 23.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2. The non applicant no.1 is wife and non applicant no.2

is daughter of the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant is Gram

Sevak and is in Government service.

2 revn67.14.odt

3. The non applicants were required to file an application

under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance since the

applicant neglected them and failed to provide any financial

assistance to them for their livelihood. The application filed on

behalf of the non applicants under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was

registered as Petition No. E-353/2012 and was allotted to the file

of Judge Family Court No.3-Nagpur.

4. The applicant-husband entered his appearance in the

said proceeding and filed his written statement and contested the

claim put forth by the present non applicants. It was the

contention of the present applicant before the Court below and

even before this Court that the non applicant no.1-wife is working

at Nagpur and she was not ready and willing to leave her job and

that the applicant was ready to cohabit with the non applicant

no.1. It is the non applicant no.1 who has refused to cohabit with

him.

The parties entered into the witness box.

5. After Appreciation of the evidence available on record,

the learned Judge has recorded a finding that the applicant-

husband has neglected both the non applicants and has not

provided any financial assistance to maintain them. A finding of

3 revn67.14.odt

fact is recorded by the learned Judge that the wife is not having

any means to maintain herself or her daughter. Further, on the

basis of the salary certificate and other available evidence on

record, the learned Judge further recorded a finding of fact that

the applicant/husband is having sufficient means to provide

maintenance and therefore the learned Judge vide the impugned

judgment directed the applicant-husband to pay maintenance at

the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to non applicant no.1-wife and

Rs.3,000/- per month to non applicant no.2-daughter.

6. Though, it was argued on behalf of the applicant by

Mr.Kharkhate, the learned counsel for the applicant, that the non

applicant no.1-wife is working at Nagpur. He candidly admits that

no evidence to that effect was brought on record by the applicant

before the trial Court. Further, though it is his submission that he

was ready to cohabit with his wife but his wife herself has

withdrawn from his company. To a specific query, Mr. Kharkhate

gave an answer to the Court that in reply to the application under

Section 9, the Hindu Marriage Petition was not filed on the

contrary the applicant has filed a petition for divorce against the

non applicants-wife.

4 revn67.14.odt

7. In that view of the matter, it is crystal clear that it is the

applicant who has withdrawn from the company of his wife.

Admittedly, the applicant is a Government servant and at the time

of evidence his salary was Rs.25,000/-.

8. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to

interfere with the order of granting maintenance to the non

applicants. There is no merit in the revision. The same is

therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

kahale