1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 208 OF 2010 (Vijay Gajananrao Dhawle .v. Sau. Sangita Vijay Dhawle and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri C.D. Raut, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khadi, Advocate for the non-applicants. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 16TH AUGUST, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By the present revision application, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. E-430/2007, dated 31.12.2009. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present revision application are as follows. The marriage between the applicant-Vijay Gajananrao Dhawle and the non-applicant No.1-Sau. Sangita Vijay Dhawle was solemnized on 29.04.2000. The non-applicant No.1 filed a petition/application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance for herself and son Sahil aged seven years and another son Yash aged four years. It was the case of the non-applicant No.1 that the applicant used to harass the non-applicant No.1 under influence of liquor and was ill treating her and her parents. In the year 2003, the applicant drove her out of the house and she started residing with her parents. On intervention of some persons and on giving undertaking of good behaviour, the non-applicant No.1 returned to the house of the applicant. Though the non-applicant No.1 started residing with the applicant, there was no change in the behaviour of the applicant and again in the month of August, 2005, the non- applicant No.1 was driven out of the house with threats of dire consequences if she returns back. It was also submitted that the applicant, who was initially doing the business of furniture, closed 2 down his business and started Gift Center in his house. The non- applicant No.1 by submitting the application before the learned Family Court, Nagpur, prayed for maintenance and the learned Family Court, vide order dated 31.12.2009, allowed the petition and directed the applicant to pay in aggregate an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 towards her maintenance and two minor sons from the date of the petition i.e. 03.12.2007. The Court further directed to clear the arrears by making additional payment per month with the costs of the petition amounting to Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the applicant-husband. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not considering the income of the applicant and an exorbitant amount of maintenance is awarded by the learned Family Court. Learned Counsel further submits that no opportunity was given to the applicant to place on record the relevant material. He submits that the Family Court has miserably failed to consider that no documentary evidence was placed before the Court by the non-applicant No.1 about running of the Gift Center and owning of house. The learned Counsel further submits that as the learned Family Court has not considered the facts in their proper perspective, the order impugned be quashed and set aside. Shri S.D. Khati, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants, submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper and needs no interference. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, I have gone through the impugned order. The perusal of the order shows that the learned lower Court has considered the facts and the material in their proper perspective. The perusal of the order further shows that the applicant neither remained present before the Court to cross- examine the non-applicant No.1 nor to defend his case and 3 submitted his oral arguments. It is also observed by the learned Family Court that the non-applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the applicant. The learned Family Court also arrived at a conclusion that the applicant neglected the non- applicant No.1 and refused to maintain her. The learned Family Court further found that though the non-applicants submitted that the applicant is running Gift Center and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and also receiving a rental income of Rs.3,000/- per month, no substantial evidence as regards to the Gift Center and the house owned by the applicant was produced on record. The 7/12 extract of the land owned by the applicant admeasuring to 3.20 HR was produced on record and by considering the crop pattern, the learned Family Court arrived at a conclusion that the applicant is receiving income of Rs.10,000/- per annum. On considering the income of the applicant and as the non-applicant No.1 is residing in a village, considering the costs of living in the village, the learned Family Court arrived at a conclusion that the non-applicants are entitled for fair and just quantum in aggregate of Rs.1,500/- per month i.e. Rs.500/- per month for each of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the learned Family Court has considered the income of the applicant and arrived at just and proper conclusion. I find no fault with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Family Court. The application is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.