1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Cri. Writ Petition No. 102/2010 1 Sau. Archana w/o Pramod Wadile, Age : 31 years, Occu. Household, 2 Ku Sheetal d/o Pramod Wadile, Age : 10 years, Occu. Education, 3 Ku. Harshal s/o Pramod Wadile, Age : 9 years, Occu. Education (through her guardian mother-petitioner no.1 All R/o Arvi, Tq. Dist. Dhule. ..Petitioners. Vs. 1 Shri Pramod s/o Sukhdeo Wadile, Age : 37 years, Occu. Business, R/o Mondhale,Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. 2 The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. ..Respondents. WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION 1033/2009 Shri Pramod s/o Sukhdeo Wadile, Age : 37 years, Occu. Business, R/o Mondhale,Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. Petitioner. Vs. 1 Sau. Archana w/o Prmod Wadile, Age : 31 years, Occu. Household, 2 2 Ku Sheetal d/o Pramod Wadile, Age : 10 years, Occu. Education, 3 Ku. Harshal s/o Pramod Wadile, Age : 9 years, Occu. Education (through her guardian mother-petitioner no.1 All R/o Arvi, Tq. Dist. Dhule. No.2 and 3 are minors u/g of their mother respondent no.1 Archana w/o Pramod Wadile All R/o Arvi Tq & Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 22nd APRIL, 2010 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT : 1 Both these writ petitions can be decided by this common judgment. 2 Petitioner no.1 in writ petition no. 102/2010 is the wife of the petitioner in writ petition no.1033/2009. The petitioners no.2 and 3 of the petition no.102/2010 are the children of the above mentioned parties. Henceforth, the parties would be referred to as ‘husband and wife’. The wife has filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the husband alleging that the husband had neglected to maintain her and her children and that she was unable to stay with him because of ill treatment etc.. She said, she and her children are unable to maintain themselves. She demanded Rs.2,000/- each as maintenance. The trial court held that the wife has made out case for maintenance but held that 3 there is no evidence to show that the husband has medical practice or has income of rent from property as alleged by the wife. All that has come on record was that the husband has a joint family property viz. two pieces of agricultural land. The husband came up with the case that he is an agricultural labour. The learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nandurbar awarded Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs.700/- each to the two minor children. As against this order, the husband went before the revisional court. The revisional court upheld the findings on facts. But held that the quantum of maintenance is rather cumbersome and taxing and he reduced the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- payable to the wife to Rs.600/- p.m.. Against this order of the revisional court as said above, both parties have preferred writ petition. The question is whether the court below has committed any illegality or it perversely appreciated the evidence. The answer is in negative. 3 Fortunately for the husband, Courts below held that he does not have other income than the income from his agricultural land and having regard to the basic needs of his dependents – the wife and children, the Courts below awarded (in my view) indeed a meager amount of maintenance. The amount of maintenance is really bare minimum. The husband really had no reason to 4 approach this court challenging the order of the revisional court. The husband consciously and having regard to his own financial position, married the wife and then consciously and having regard to his own income, produced two children. In such situation, the Court should presume that he has means to maintain his dependents properly. So, the amount of maintenance ordered, my view, is not assailable. The wife contended that the learned judge of the revisional court should not have reduced the amount of maintenance payable to her. But the revisional court discussed this issue in para 15 of his judgment and giving cogent reasons, reduced the amount of maintenance. I do not find it objectionable that the learned judge of the revisional court took into account the educational qualification of the wife and possibility of she taking up the job to supplement her income for maintaining herself and her children. The learned judge in my view, was right in expressing his expectation from the wife that she would also do some work and earn some amount for her livelihood. In view of this, both the petitions should fail. They stand dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/ok 5