Hemantkumar Kanchanlal Shah vs Varshaben Hemantbhai Shah
2022 Latest Caselaw 9965 Guj

    R/CR.RA/211/2022                                ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

  R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 211 of 2022

======================================
            HEMANTKUMAR KANCHANLAL SHAH
                          Versus
              VARSHABEN HEMANTBHAI SHAH
======================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH K SHAH(784) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                          Date : 12/12/2022

                             ORAL ORDER

[1.0] This Revision Application is filed by the petitioner - husband challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Navsari dated 13.03.2020 whereby respondent no.1 - wife has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 01.04.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2019 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

[2.0] Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner

- husband, submitted that so far as the finding recorded for issue no.1 that, whether the applicant proves that the

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

opponent has deserted her by inflicting physical and mental cruelty without valid reason is concerned, though the answer to it is in affirmative, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in civil proceedings against each other and the terms recorded therein produced at page 28 of the compilation, it is submitted that the petitioner - husband cannot be said to have deserted respondent no.1 - wife without valid reason as it is mentioned in it that she started staying separate on and after execution of the settlement deed dated 02.09.2009, and therefore, he has submitted that the order of maintenance to respondent no.1 - wife by the Court directing the petitioner - husband to pay maintenance is illegal and the same be quashed and set aside.

[2.1] He has further submitted that though they separated by way of compromise between the parties in civil litigation since 2009, she has filed this proceedings claiming maintenance against the petitioner - husband only in the year 2019, and therefore, she cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself as she had maintained herself for about 10 years after they started staying separate. He has further submitted that, as stated in her application as also in her deposition, she was running a Beauty Parlour and earning sufficiently, and therefore, it is submitted that she cannot claim maintenance from the petitioner - husband now. He has further submitted that once she is put in possession of the premises agreed between the parties, where she is staying right now, it cannot be said that no sufficient care is taken by the petitioner - husband to maintain her, since without any sufficient reason, she has refused to live with her husband and

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

on the contrary willingly she is staying in separate premises provided by the petitioner - husband, and therefore, he cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the maintenance. He has further submitted that for awarding maintenance, the income of the petitioner - husband is not determined, and therefore, the order of maintenance passed by the Court is erroneous.

[2.2] He has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is without applying mind and it is not supported by evidence so far as it relates to the earning /income of the petitioner - husband is concerned.

[2.3] He has further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Judge, based on assertion by respondent no.1 - wife, that the petitioner - husband is having affair with some lady is without any proof thereof, and therefore, it is cruelty to the husband, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. He has further submitted that the petitioner - husband has taken good care of his son, whom he has brought up and respondent no.1 - wife has never cared for his well being. He has further submitted that since he has on oath in this memo of Revision Application stated that he is not earning, there is no reason to award maintenance to respondent no.1 - wife, that too, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

[2.4] He has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is as such ex parte and when he has paid substantial amount, in this background the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back for the purpose of leading

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

evidence by the petitioner - husband within the stipulated time and he be given an opportunity to execute the documents as agreed between the parties in a compromise entered into between them. He has further submitted that if there is some substance in the allegation by respondent no.1 - wife that the petitioner - husband is having relation with some other lady, after she has deserted the husband, by now he might have married with her, and therefore, there is no substance in the allegation made by respondent no.1 - wife. He has further submitted that as per the compromise entered into between the parties, father has taken the responsibility of the son and he has spent huge amount for the upbringing of his son, and therefore, he is not liable to pay the maintenance to respondent no.1 - wife, who has never cared for her son.

[2.5] Drawing attention of the Court to the Income-tax returns, which he has produced at page 49 up to page 59 for the Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021- 22, he hardly earns Rs.92,935/- per annum, and therefore, the order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the learned Judge is much much on a higher side considering the earning of the petitioner - husband, and therefore, he has requested that the order impugned requires to be interfered with while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

[2.6] Relying on the decision of this Court, which is annexed with the petition at page 31 in the case of Shripatsinh Keshrisinh Ranawat Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2010 (2) GCD 1209, it is submitted that once the matter in Civil Court is settled, wife's right to get maintenance

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not survive because the inter se relationship between the parties comes to an end.

[2.7] Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Dey Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in AIR 2003 SC 4412, it is submitted that the Revision should not be dismissed on technical ground without going into the merits so as to find out if it was a fit case for interference or not.

[2.8] Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saygo Bai Vs. Cheeru Bajrangi reported in AIR 2011 SC 1557, more particularly, paragraph 13 thereof, it is submitted that despite her husband earning Rs.10,000/- per month as salary being a Constable in Police force and also has other sources of income from agricultural properties, the maintenance awarded to the wife at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month was held to be proper.

[2.9] Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 569, more particularly Head Note (B), it is submitted that in an application for maintenance, an affidavit has to be filed by the wife to show that she is not earning and she is entitled for maintenance.

[2.10] Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Halder reported in AIR 2003 SC 3174 relying on Head Note (B), for a

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

proposition that if there is nothing in pleadings or in evidence examined by wife that husband had affair with any other lady and in absence of putting any question in that regard to the witness produced by husband, such question should not have been permitted by the Court, and therefore, it is submitted that the allegation of the wife that the husband has illicit relation with other lady, and therefore, she is being neglected, has no legs to stand, and therefore, she has no reason to stay separate from the husband without sufficient cause, and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance.

[2.11] On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner - husband, submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the petitioner - husband be given an opportunity to lead evidence so far as his earning is concerned, more particularly when the proceedings went ex parte.

[3.0] As against that, Mr. R.K. Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.1 - wife, submitted that all the necessary evidence has been led before the Court, and therefore, the finding is recorded on appreciation of evidence, which is not required to be interfered with. He has further submitted that despite the compromise entered into between the parties and civil litigations come to an end filed by both of the parties against each other, the petitioner - husband has not obeyed the compromise deed, and therefore, since she is unable to maintain herself now, she has claimed maintenance. It is further submitted that for claiming maintenance from the petitioner - husband, there is no limitation prescribed under

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

'the Code', and therefore, merely because they separated in the year 2009 and this application for maintenance is preferred in the year 2019, it may not be rejected on that ground. It is further submitted that the petitioner - husband is doing business here and he is also having business in the foreign countries and earns around Rs.2 lakhs monthly. It is further submitted that the petitioner - husband is having immovable properties, residential as also commercial at Navsari and Mumbai. He has further submitted that since the son has already become major, there is no liability of the petitioner - husband to maintain the son except to maintain respondent no.1 - wife. It is further submitted that initially she was running a Beauty Parlor but now with age as also advancement in the field, she is unable to earn sufficiently to sustain herself, and therefore, there is no other option but to file an application for maintenance from her husband.

[3.1] Relying on the decision in the case of Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in AIR 2019 SC 4748, more particularly, paragraph nos.7 and 9 thereof, it is submitted that even divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance. It is submitted that despite compromise between the parties and they started staying separate with an end to civil litigation, she can still file an application for maintenance under Section 125 of 'the Code'. Relying on the very said decision, it is submitted that even if no petition for grant of maintenance is filed during the year 2009 to 2019, it is not a ground to deny maintenance to the wife when it has been filed in the year 2019. For the very same proposition, as referred to hereinabove, the judgment of

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

this Court dated 05.05.2017 rendered in Special Criminal Application No.9355 of 2016 in the case of Nayanaben Ratilal Gohel Vs. State of Gujarat is relied and it is submitted that the wife is entitled to get maintenance even if decree of divorce is passed against her on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Another decision relied on the same line is in the case of Paresh Chaturbhai Patel Vs. Kokilaben Manilal Patel and Anr reported in 2017 (3) GLR 2236.

[3.1] It is further submitted that since the petitioner - husband has not appeared before the Court concerned and he has not produced and proved the Income-tax returns, which he has annexed with the present petition, it should not be taken into consideration as production and proof thereof is not tested on the touchstone of cross examination of him or his witnesses, and therefore, it is submitted that producing and annexing it before this Court in a Revision Application should be ignored, that too, for determining the earning of the petitioner - husband.

[3.2] On overall arguments and the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for respondent no.1 - wife, it is submitted that as such the impugned order of maintenance passed by the Court is on a lower side but since no Revision is filed by the wife for enhancement of the same, the said order should not be interfered with, that too, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of 'the Code'.

[4.0]         Having   heard   the     learned   advocates         for     the





      R/CR.RA/211/2022                         ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

appearing parties and going through the impugned judgment and order as also the documents annexed with the petition, it emerges that there was matrimonial civil litigation between the parties and they entered into an agreement dated 02.09.2009 and pursuant thereto, it was agreed that for the property mentioned therein, once sale document is executed in favour of respondent no.1 - wife, a consent divorce petition was to be filed before the Court to obtain divorce decree in it. At the same time, respondent no.1 - wife had also to withdraw her suit filed for restitution of conjugal rights. As coming out from the submissions made, both these civil litigations have come to be withdrawn pursuant to the said agreement between the parties. It is further coming on record that as on date there is no sale document executed by the petitioner - husband, as claimed in the agreement. Therefore, it is rightly not argued by the petitioner - husband that she has agreed to forgo her right for permanent alimony because it was to stop after the sale document is executed. In short, though the consent terms have been entered into between the parties, it appears to have been observed only in breach thereof as the petitioner - husband has not acted as per the terms mentioned in it.

[4.1] The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner - husband that once respondent no.1 - wife has started residing separate willingly pursuant to an agreement entered into between the parties, she is not entitled to maintenance is concerned, it is required to be rejected outright. As coming out from the impugned judgment itself, respondent no.1 - wife was constrained to stay separate as the

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

petitioner - husband had relation with other women and because of that reason, he started harassing the wife and that compelled her to stay separate. Not only that, the minor son was staying outside for the purpose of his study and after becoming major, he is also leading his own life under the supervision of the petitioner - husband. As recorded in paragraph 7.2 of the impugned judgment, when they started staying at Virar, the petitioner - husband developed relations with other woman, who is referred to by name in the deposition of respondent no.1 - wife and because of that there were disputes in the matrimonial life of respondent no.1 - wife and the petitioner. It is further deposed to before the Court that because of that reason she was time and again beaten and driven out of the house. She has further deposed before the Court that the petitioner - husband is engaged in fish farming activity on large scale, and therefore, she was brought to Navsari for the said purpose. Since then, the parties started staying at the address of the petitioner - husband as mentioned in the cause title of the Revision Application. However, as coming out from the evidence that because of the relation of the petitioner - husband with other woman, there were frequent quarrels in between them, and therefore, she was provided residential accommodation as mentioned in the cause title of respondent no.1 herein, being Tapovan Apartment, which consisted of one bed room, hall and kitchen admeasuring 57.156 sq meters equivalent to 615 sq feet. At that very address the petitioner - husband claims that pursuant to an agreement she has been provided the residential accommodation, and therefore, he cannot be said to have neglected her for the maintenance, and therefore, the

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside, is required to be rejected outright as she was given that accommodation while no proceedings were filed with a view to see that there may not be daily trouble in the life when the petitioner - husband is alleged to have relation with another woman. It is not that the petitioner - husband has obliged her by providing said residential accommodation pursuant to an agreement /settlement arrived at between the parties. As per the settlement /agreement, the petitioner - husband was to execute sale deed in respect of that property in favour of respondent no.1 - wife after it is released from collateral security, within two years, with Cooperation Bank, Paradise Branch, Navsari. However, the petitioner - husband has not come out with clean hands even disclosing or arguing before this Court that when that flat was released from collateral security, whether he has shown any readiness to execute the sale deed as agreed by him in an agreement /consent term dated 02.09.2009, which is heavily relied on by him. Not only that, as coming out from the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.1 - wife, instead of draft of sale deed sent to her for approval and signing, the petitioner - husband has come out with draft of a gift deed that too in the name of respondent no.1 - wife as also his own son, whom he claims to have brought up after separation, and therefore, it appears that not only the intention of the petitioner - husband is not to provide the maintenance but to get rid of her even from the property. As per the consent terms, despite sale deed is to be executed in her favour, as nominee, name of his son has to be entered while entering the name in the property card. That shows the husband's scant regard to a destitute wife and he is

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

much concerned with saving his own property and to see that it reverts back to his son, and therefore, the submission that despite draft is given to her for execution of document, it is not approved, it cannot be entertained further as it was not a draft of sale document, which was agreed by and between the parties.

[4.2] As such, no limitation is prescribed either in Section 125 of 'the Code' or by way of any provision in any other Act to claim maintenance under 'the Code' after separation or desertion. However, so long as respondent no.1 - wife could drag on her life by doing Beauty Parlor work and meeting with her daily needs, she had never claimed maintenance from the petitioner - husband and that cannot be made a ground that she is not entitled for maintenance when despite desertion in the year 2009, she has not applied for maintenance till 2019. On the contrary, the petitioner - husband should have taken care of her even by asking, not paying, whether she can drag her life or not with the work. Not only, he has failed to do so, he has put forth the ground to deny her the right of maintenance as she has applied for maintenance after about 10 years of separation. As such, there is no limitation prescribed for claiming maintenance. The said argument does not deserve any recognition at all. Even if that is so, it appears that it is an honest attempt of the wife that she could drag on her life by doing work till 2019 and with advancement of the technology and the market having Salons, her work of Beauty Parlor has affected, and therefore, she is not able to earn, at that moment only, she has claimed maintenance.

     R/CR.RA/211/2022                          ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022




[4.3]         The argument of the learned advocate for the

petitioner - husband that since she has been put in possession of the property agreed by and between the parties, it cannot be said that the petitioner - husband has neglected respondent no.1 - wife so as to entitle her to claim maintenance is again required to be rejected for the simple reason that much prior to entering into the compromise, as coming out from the record, she was provided with the said premises so as to avoid any dispute between petitioner - husband and respondent no.1

- wife because of relation of the petitioner - husband with other woman in his life. Merely providing even a residential accommodation, the husband is not absolved from his liability to pay maintenance to the wife as the said accommodation is hardly of one bed room. Since after execution of an agreement by and between the parties in the year 2009, the petitioner - husband has never cared for respondent no.1 - wife providing any maintenance to her, when she has a reason to stay separate because of the cruelty and harassment of the husband, he can be said to have deserted and neglected the wife so as to entitle her for maintenance, as claimed. Even prior to filing of the application for maintenance by respondent no.1 - wife, she issued notice through her advocate but of no avail, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner - husband even to reply to the notice claiming whatever right he has to refuse or deny maintenance to her.

[4.4] As coming out from the record on service of notice / summons in this maintenance proceedings, the petitioner - husband did not bother to participate in the proceedings and he rest contended with appearing with an advocate on service

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

of notice. However, he had not filed any reply to the application filed by respondent no.1 - wife, and therefore, Court was constrained to proceed ex parte. Since consistently neither the petitioner nor the advocate remained present, his right to lead evidence came to be closed on an application filed by respondent no.1 - wife. Despite that, he has never appeared before the Court subsequently also praying to get it reopened, which shows the very adamant attitude of the petitioner - husband.

[4.5] The proceedings before the Court went ex parte for the deliberate fault of the petitioner - husband, and therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings have went ex parte, and therefore, the case is required to be remanded back providing an opportunity to the petitioner - husband to lead evidence. It is not the case that he was deprived of leading evidence before the Court but it was his unilateral decision not to participate in the proceedings, and therefore, in this Revision Application, he cannot complain that he has not been provided with an opportunity to produce his evidence. Though the impugned order is passed by the Family Court couple of days prior to the lock-down he could have resorted to the proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 126 of 'the Code' within three months of the reopening of the Court, even through Video Conference hearing showing good cause by an application requesting it to set aside that ex parte order. Therefore, the case is not required to be remanded back for the purpose of leading evidence by petitioner.

[4.6]         So far the income aspect is concerned, according to





     R/CR.RA/211/2022                            ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

respondent no.1 - wife, the petitioner husband is doing business of fish farming and he is also doing business with his brother in America and earning Rs.2 to Rs.3 lakhs per month and is also having immovable properties, commercial as also residential at Navsari and at Mumbai. If in absence of any documents supporting the said assertion of respondent no.1 - wife, a reasonable conclusion is arrived at by the Court of his earning to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and despite that out of that reasonable estimate of his earning, in absence of any evidence led by the petitioner - husband, awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- appears to be on a very lower side. The documents in the form of Income-tax returns filed before this Court, if produced before the trial Court through his own deposition to be tested on the touchstone of cross examination of him. Even if it is to be presumed to be correct or proved first return for the Assessment Year 2018-19, it appears that it is filed on 31.03.2019 i.e. a day prior to the application for maintenance is filed by respondent no.1 - wife but after the notice for the same is issued and received by the petitioner - husband and if computation of total income for the return for Assessment Year 2018-19 is seen, he has shown his earning to be Rs.93, 240/- his profit and gains from business and profession being Tashkand Aqua Farm. On the contrary, that supports the assertion of respondent no.1 - wife that the petitioner - husband is dealing in the business of fish farming.

[4.7] In the balance sheet sundry debtors are shown to be for an amount of Rs.47,81,113/- and stock in trade is shown to be NIL. Similarly, after filing of the application for maintenance and passing of the impugned judgment and

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

order, income tax returns for Assessment Year 2019-20 is filed on 28.09.2020, which shows his gross total income to be Rs.97,830/- without production of Profit and Loss Account and other computation of earning on other head reflected in the return. However, his Income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2020-21 with computation of total income and details of tax deduction shows that he has awarded sub contract in fish farming for the value of Rs.35 lakhs for that year and TDS of Rs.35,000/- under Section 194 C is shown in it. However, profit under Section 44 AD of Tashkand Aqua Farm is calculated to be profit deemed under Section 44 AD at the rate of 8% of Rs.35 lakhs to be Rs.2,80,000/- and profit declared under Section 44 AD of the Income Tax Act at the rate of 17.5% of Rs.35 lakhs shown to be Rs.6,12,500/-. Thus, it is very clear that after obtaining contract for fish farming, he also awards sub contracts for his gain yearly and from that income-tax return, it appears that he earns much more than even imagination of the respondent - wife. As such, such income- tax returns, are not produced and proved by the petitioner - husband and he has not stood by the cross examination and when those documents are not tested on the touchstone of cross examination with reference to the accounts, it cannot be taken into consideration but on the contrary supports the case of respondent no.1 - wife that he is having at least earning of Rs.2 to Rs.3 lakhs per month from fish farming apart from earning with the help of his brother from business at America. As such, it is for the petitioner - husband to come out with his real earning as it is exclusively within his knowledge under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

     R/CR.RA/211/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022




[4.8]         So far as the decision in the case of                 Prasanta

Kumar Dey (Supra) relied on by the petitioner - husband is concerned, it is not of much help to him as in that case the Supreme Court was concerned with the fact that instead of rejecting the Revision Application on a technical ground that it is second Revision not maintainable, it should have gone into the merits so as to find out if it was a fit case of interference under Section 401 read with Section 482 of 'the Code' on the premise that after the order under Section 125 of 'the Code' came to be passed, the appellant therein moved an application under Section 126(2) of 'the Code' seeking setting aside of ex parte order and giving the appellant an opportunity of contesting under Section 125 of 'the Code' on merit. Here without even approaching the concerned Court under the said provision, as referred to hereinabvoe, a contention was raised therein that the Magistrate concerned, did not have jurisdiction under Section 125 of 'the Code' to grant maintenance at the monthly rate exceeding Rs.500/- and despite that maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- was awarded by it, and therefore, in those facts and circumstances of the case, Supreme Court in the said case in its own facts, which is not applicable in the present case, determined the same.

[4.9] Another decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner - husband in the case of Saygo Bai (Supra) in the said decision, the husband, who was Police Constable did not produce any evidence about his own earning and since Supreme Court considered that the appellant - wife was in the state of penury and not getting even the interim maintenance on presumption that husband

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

must be earning at least Rs.10,000/- per month, it determined the maintenance of Rs.1500/- in favour of the respondent - wife and it was in the facts and circumstances of that case in a situation prevailed before it, and therefore, it cannot be pressed into service for determining the amount of maintenance in the present case when, as referred to hereinabove, he earns much more than even the imagination of respondent no.1 wife,

[4.10] Another decision in the case of Rajnesh(Supra) pressed into service to submit that the wife did not file any affidavit about her earnings and properties, she should not have been awarded maintenance as awarded by the Family Court is concerned, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner - husband that he himself has not even appeared before the Court apart from filing any affidavit by him with regard to rights and liabilities showing his own earning and properties in view of that very decision. At the same time, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, appears to be guiding principle when no evidence is yet led before the Court determining the interim maintenance, which cannot take place of proof unless full fledged trial is conducted. At any rate, since he has not even entered the witness box, did not file even any affidavit, did not cross examine respondent no.1 - wife, the said decision is not helpful to him and on the contrary it goes against him.

[4.11] The decision in the case of Deb Narayan Halder (Supra) relying on Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is also out of context as in that case there was nothing in

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

the pleadings by the wife or in evidence examined by wife that the husband had affair with any other lady and no question was put in that regard to even witness produced by the husband. Without there being any basis in the pleadings or evidence putting such question to the witness produced by the husband was not permitted by the Court. However, in the present case, not only in the pleadings itself but in the evidence also, wife has categorically with name asserted that the petitioner - husband has relation with other woman and the petitioner - husband has not even denied by filing the reply, apart from leading any evidence or cross examining the respondent no.1 - wife, and therefore, the said case for the principle enunciated therein is of no assistance to the petitioner - husband, and therefore, it cannot be relied on.

[4.12] So far as the decision relied on by the learned advocate for respondent no.1 - wife is concerned, there is no quarrel for a proposition that even divorced wife is also entitled for the maintenance and it is not in issue for the present as no decree of divorce is yet passed, which was to be obtained with the consent of the parties as per the consent terms, which is never acted upon by the petitioner - husband.

[4.13] At the same time, even the waiver of any sort of maintenance by the respondent - wife on the date of entering into the compromise dated 02.09.2009 towards permanent alimony is concerned, that waiver is also conditional and that has to be waived only and only after the sale deed is executed of the premises, which is offered by the petitioner - husband to her, and therefore, the said argument does not lie in the mouth

R/CR.RA/211/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

of the petitioner, and therefore, it is out right rejected.

[5.0] Having detailed analysis of the evidence on record and the documents produced even by the petitioner - husband before this Court when he has not come with clean hands, suppressing his material part of Income-tax returns about his real earning, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner to remand back the case permitting him to lead evidence as he has never ever attempted to get that right as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 126 of 'the Code', and therefore, this petition is liable to be rejected and it is hereby rejected.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)

sjii