Bombay High Court
Shabbir S/O. Najmoddin Rangwale vs Shajahanbegam W/O. Shabbir ... on 1 February, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 972-CrRn-35-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2020
Shabbir s/o. Najmoddin Rangwale,
Age 49 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Kondhwa, Mitha Nagar,
Kondhawa, Pune,
Taluka and District Pune .. Applicant
Versus
1. Shajahanbegam w/o. Shabbir Rangwale,
Age 33 years, Occu. Household,
2. Aksa d/o. Shabbir Rangwale,
Age 7 years, Occu. Education,
Minor under guardian of respondent No.1,
Both R/o. Khori Galli, Latur. .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant B. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S. B. Solanke, Advocate for respondents
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 01-02-2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applicant/husband has impugned the order of Family
Court in Petition E-91 of 2020, dated 17.01.2020. The learned
Judge, Family Court, granted the maintenance allowance of
Rs.6000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.2000/- per
month to respondent No.2/daughter.
2 972-CrRn-35-20.odt
3. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued
that respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife. She had
suppressed her earlier marriage. This material aspect has not
been considered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Latur. To
bolster his argument, the learned counsel for the applicant relied
upon the cases, (i) Umaji Satwji Shep (Died) by L.Rs. versus
Gulam Mohmood Gulam Dastgir (Died) by L.Rs, 2022
LiveLaw (Bom) 431 and (ii) Sunder Lal Saini Versus Meena
Saini,2021 SCC OnLine Del 4930.
4. He also added that the applicant has suffered head injury in
an accident. He fell down from the second floor. Therefore, his
earning capacity has been reduced. It has also been argued that
the wife/respondent No.1 had the beauty parlour. She has good
income to maintain herself.
5. It is further case of the applicant that the learned Judge,
Family Court, Latur did not appreciate the evidence in proper
perspective. The income of the applicant was not proved. In
absence of any material on record, the learned Judge, Family
Court, Latur, erroneously quantified the maintenance amount.
Therefore, the revision application is liable to be allowed and the
maintenance awarded to respondent No.1/wife is liable to be set
aside and maintenance granted to respondent No.2/daughter is
liable to be reduced.
3 972-CrRn-35-20.odt
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has
vehemently argued that the applicant was a big business man. He
was having handsome income of Rs.13 Lakh per month. He has
admitted in his cross-examination that he is the owner of
Hardware shop at Pune. The applicant admitted in the notice
issued by him through lawyer that, he got married respondent
No.1/wife on 09.01.2010 as per Muslim rites and custom. His plea
of illegal marriage is the exaggeration of the fact. His income has
not been reduced. He is a big business man, but only to avoid
maintenance, he has come with a false plea. He has also not
produced the evidence that due to fall from the second floor, he
has lost his earning capacity. Considering the standard of living,
family background and needs of the family, the learned Judge,
Family Court, Latur has correctly quantified the maintenance
amount. There is no error on the face of the record.
7. Perused the record and the impugned judgment and order.
8. It appears from the record that the stand of the
applicant/husband as regards the marriage is not consistent. On
one hand, he is coming with the case that his Nikah was forceful
and on the other hand, the said marriage was illegal. In the notice
issued by the applicant/husband through counsel, he has candidly
admitted that he got married respondent No.1/wife on 09.01.2010
as per the Muslim rites and custom. The husband and the wife
resided together for about eight years and they were blessed with
4 972-CrRn-35-20.odt
a girl child. Till the dispute, the husband never raised objection
about illegality of his marriage. That apart, there was no evidence
to prove that her earlier marriage was subsisting. Considering the
evidence, there appears scope to believe that the applicant/
husband was business man. He was having two-three businesses.
His inconsistent evidence as regards the income and matrimonial
relationship has been correctly discarded by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Latur. The learned Judge, Family Court, considered
the facts, circumstances, living standard of both parties, rising
costs, need of clothes, shelter and medicines, etc. and correctly
quantified Rs.6000/- for respondent No.1/wife and Rs.4000/- to
respondent No.2/daughter. Considering the standard of living, the
quantum of maintenance determined by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Latur appears reasonable and proper.
10. In view of the facts of the case, the case laws relied on by
the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be applied in the case
in hand as its facts are different.
11. After having gone through the material placed before the
Court, the evidence and findings recorded by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Latur, the impugned order appears legal, proper and
correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
Hence, criminal revision application stands dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
( S. G. MEHARE, J. )
rrd
