1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.213/2010. (Shyam Raghunathrao Deshmukh Vs. Sau. Gauri Shyam Deshmukh and another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.A. Brahme, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. M. Pathan, APP for the Respondent No.2/State. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J DATE : JULY 14, 2011 By this revision application the applicant prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Family Court, Akola in E. Petition No.166/2009. Heard submission and perused record and proceedings. It appears that respondent no.1-Sau Gauri had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2009 whereby she had prayed for maintenance in the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and costs of the application to be quantified at Rs.10,000/-. According to respondent no.1-Sau. Gauri, she had married with the petitioner on 18.06.2005. She claimed that in marriage her father had given ornaments of Rs.50,000/-; Rs.20,000/- in cash to the husband and he in all 2 spent Rs.2,00,000/- over the marriage. The ornaments and gift items were snatched by in-laws of the applicant-Sau. Gauri. Applicant Sau. Gauri was treated well only for 15 days of the marriage and thereafter she was put to harassment. The present petitioner and in-laws of the applicant started insisting on her to bring money from her parents. Ultimately on 16.02.2006 applicant Sau. Gauri was sent to her parental home per force. Efforts made by applicants father to convince petitioner-husband failed. Applicant Gauri claimed that she is unable to earn her livelihood whereas petitioner husband is a rich person earning Rs.20,000/- per month. His father is pensioner and there are no dependents on the income of petitioner husband. The petitioner-husband in his written statement denied the claim of the respondent-wife. He denied that any gift items and/or ornaments and cash amount were given by the father of respondent-wife in the marriage. He stated that he is ready and willing to maintain respondent-wife as his wife. According to him, respondent-wife on her own left the matrimonial home and therefore, according to law she is not entitled to claim the maintenance allowance from the petitioner. In the alternative, he submitted that his income from the Computer business is very much meagre and that he is unable to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent. He further 3 claimed that respondent-wife has done M.A. in Sanskrit and she gets sizable income by conducting tuition classes. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the application. Parties led evidence before the learned Magistrate and after taking stock of the entire material on record and hearing the parties, learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the present petitioner to pay to respondent no.1 sum of Rs.7000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of order and awarded lump-sum amount of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent-wife from the date of filing application till the date of order as also cost of Rs.3000/-. It is this order which is the subject-matter of challenge in this application. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the income of the petitioner believed by the learned Magistrate is without any basis. The telephone bills of Rs.98,329/- and Rs. 82,000/- produced on record by respondent no.1 were incorrect bills and the petitioner got them corrected later on. He further contends that the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the willingness of the petitioner to maintain respondent no.1 as his wife and cohabit with her. He further contends that the fact that respondent no.1 is Post Graduate and must be drawing handsome income has not been taken into account by the learned Magistrate. 4 Learned counsel appearing for respondent-wife supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of application. Even though it is contended that the telephone bills for hefty amounts were incorrect, the alleged corrected bills were not produced by the petitioner husband before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate was right in observing that there was no material placed before her by the petitioner husband to substantiate his claim that respondent no.1 was deriving any income by running tuition classes. Merely because respondent no.1 wife has done M.A. in Sanskrit does not mean to that she has independent source of earning and learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be heard to say that respondent no.1 wife is a earning member should have been so inferred by the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has rightly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sitabi reported in 2008 SAR (Criminal) 14. Viewed from any angle therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE NSN