IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 421 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 421 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 421 OF 2007. Sunil Ganpati Bhosale. ..Petitioner. versus Sou. Lajwanti Sunil Bhosale & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.P.D. Dalvi, for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay Killedar, for the Respondent No.1. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH AUGUST,2008. : 13TH AUGUST,2008. : 13TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard Advocate for the Petitioner and the Advocate for the first Respondent. The first Respondent is the wife of the Petitioner who applied for the maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the first Respondent has failed to prove refusal or neglect on the part of the Petitioner to maintain the first Respondent. In a Revision Application filed by the first Respondent, the learned Sessions Judge has interfered. By Judgment and Order dated 19th October 2006, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the first Respondent from the date of filing the application. - 2 - 2. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-husband is that though the gross salary of the Petitioner is Rs.5,245/-, after considering all the deductions, his take home monthly salary is only Rs.1,100/-. He has placed reliance on a salary slip of the Petitioner for December 2006. He submitted that considering the take home salary, the amount of maintenance granted is exorbitant and it is impossible for the Petitioner to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. 3. I have considered the submissions. The salary slip of the Petitioner for the month of December 2006 annexed to the Petition shows that the gross salary (basic salary, dearness allowance, dearness pay and house rent allowance) was Rs.5,245/-. A deduction of Rs.175/- on account of professional tax, a deduction of Rs.600/- on account of contribution to provident fund, a deduction of Rs.373/- on account of insurance and a deduction of Rs.300/- on account of CTD have been shown. The major deduction is of Rs.2,548/- for repayment of loan taken by the Petitioner from the Societies. Surely this deduction cannot be considered while - 3 - computing the amount of maintenance. 4. In paragraph no.11 of his Judgement, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has noted that the Petitioner was an employee of a Municipal Corporation. The learned Judge also noted that the Petitioner has one mentally challenged brother, but he has recorded a finding that the Petitioner’s father is a pensioner and the Petitioner’s father has received the substantial amount of gratuity. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month fixed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable. Hence, no case is made out for interference. However, sufficient time deserves to be granted to the Petitioner to pay the arrears payable till 31st July 2008. 6. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The Petition is dismissed. (2) Time of six months is granted to the Petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance upto 31st July 2008. However, the Petitioner will - 4 - keep on paying monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-. (3) The first Respondent is entitled to withdraw Rs.5000/- deposited by the Petitioner in terms of ad-interim order dated 3rd July 2008. (4) The concerned Court and the parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]