1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 121/2008 Pavan Kavadu Msurkar ..vs.. Ranjana Pavan Masurkar and anr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Shamkuwar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Khanzode, Advocate for non applicant nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 21 st AUGUST, 2009 1. The non applicants have filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Family Court at Nagpur being Application No. E-127/2006. That application was heard and decided by learned Judge, Family Court by order dated 09.04.2007 and non applicant no. 1 was to receive Rs. 700/- per month and non applicant no. 2 was to receive Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance. This order dated 09.04.2007 is challenged in this revision. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Shamkuwar for the applicant and Mr. Khanzode, Advocate for non applicants. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant stated that he is an agricultural labour and earns a sum of 2 Rs. 50-60 per day. He pointed out that the learned Judge, Family Court has observed in para no. 23 that father of the applicant has agricultural land and because the applicant happens to be the only son of his father, his father can maintain him. According to Advocate Mr. Shamkuwar these observations will clearly go to show that there is non application of mind and order is required to be looked into. 4. I had called upon learned Advocate for the applicant to produce before this Court evidence led by him in support of his stand that he is an agricultural labour. Learned Advocate Mr. Shamkuwar made available to the Court evidence given by the applicant. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that he is not having any service. He also stated that he does not have any agricultural property in his name. Despite this, in cross-examination, he has stated the following sentence:- “In my field, we took crops of Soyabean, Rice. It is true that I am in a position to maintain my wife from the income of agricultural land.” This word of the applicant in the cross-examination will have to be taken to mean that the applicant is suppressing certain facts, which are exclusively within his knowledge as 3 regards his income. If at all the applicant had no agricultural land as stated in the examination-in-chief, how is it that the applicant stated in the cross-examination that he could maintain his wife from the agricultural income. This evidence is against the interest of the applicant and would clearly mean that the applicant has suppressed is source of income. If this is the position, one will have to accept the final conclusion arrived at by learned Family Court whereby the maintenance of Rs. 700/- and Rs. 500/- per month is granted to non applicant nos. 1 and 2 respectively. It appears that learned Judge, Family Court failed to look into evidence into proper manner and that is how she referred to certain observations which were stated earlier. In my view, quantum of maintenance arrived on the basis of the evidence is proper and because of conduct of the applicant, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, the order. The application is dismissed at the stage of admission JUDGE kahale