1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 2009 Tarun D. Jaggi ... Applicant Vs. Mrs. Meetu Tarun Jaggi & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole for the applicant. Mr. D.S. Hatle for respondent No.1. Mr.Y.S. Shinde APP for the respondent State. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. Dated :- 15th September, 2009. PC : 01. This revision application is filed by the petitioner husband against the order dated 09.03.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Thane. The respondent wife has filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while deciding the matter learned JMFC fixed the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. Respective revision applications for challenging the maintenance amount were filed by both the parties before 2 the learned District and Sessions Judge. The revision of respondent-wife was allowed by the Sessions Court and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Hence, being aggrieved with this order, the revision application. 02. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is challenged on the following grounds. 1. The respondent-wife is highly qualified and was having job prior to the marriage and she is capable of getting job and maintaining herself. 2. The petitioner-husband has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-wife at Bangalore where they resided last and he is willing to stay with her. 03. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that, today the respondent-wife is not working anywhere and it is her right to maintain by her husband. 3 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has placed reliance on the case of “Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur”. In which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken view as follows:- “Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties, and considering the reality of the situation to the effect that the appellant is receiving a sum of about Rs. 9000/- in hand after deduction of various amounts, including the installments towards repayment of the home loan, we are of the view that the amount as awarded by way of interim maintenance is on the high side. At the same time, we cannot also shut our eyes to the fact that at present the respondent-wife is not employed or at least there is nothing on record to indicate she is employed gainfully. However, having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.” 05. At present respondent-wife is not having her own source of income as she is not employed and so she has every right to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her capacity to work and the salary of the husband are to be considered while deciding 4 the amount of the maintenance. So also the fact, the petition of restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the Court and so the amount of maintenance which is enhanced up to Rs.15,000/- is to be reduced to Rs.8,000/- per month. 1. Revision application is partly allowed. 2. The amount of maintenance is modified and reduced to Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of revision application. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)