SB CR.REV.P No.1155/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1155/2010. Altaf Ahmed Vs. Smt.Rubina Bano Date of order : 1/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J Shri Tanveer Ahmed for petitioner. Shri Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** BY THE COURT:- The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner husband assailing the order of the learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which, he has been directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent-wife and also the order of the learned appellate court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 16/7/2010 by which, appeal submitted by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is hardly earning SB CR.REV.P No.1155/10. 2 Rs.2500/- per month and he cannot be forced to pay Rs.3000/- per month. Learned courts below have failed to appreciate that petitioner was willing to keep the wife but she herself does not want to stay with him. She in her statement before the court in the proceedings of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights stated that she is ready to withdraw all the cases pending in the court provided, if the petitioner divorced her and further she does not want to live with him. Respondent therefore disentitled herself to any maintenance. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner produced before the court certain documents showing that he was a member of Below Poverty Line (BPL) and that he has hardly any income to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the wife. Impugned orders be therefore quashed and set- aside. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing the material available on record, I find that learned court prior to passing of the impugned order, called for report of the protection officer. In the report of the SB CR.REV.P No.1155/10. 3 Protection Officer, it has come on record that petitioner husband tried to use the wife for entertainment of other persons, used to make allegations about her character, subjected her to humiliation for not giving enough dowry and she was being forced to meet particular person. Besides this, she was not being provided food, clothes etc. forcing her to stay at home of her parents. Allegation of the respondent wife regarding his work is that he was doing the business of trading of diamonds and semi precious stones and by that, he is earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Petitioner on the other hand, asserted that he is a member of Below Poverty Line (BPL) and he is hardly earning Rs.2500/- per month therefore, he cannot be forced to pay Rs.3000/- per month. The assertion of the petitioner that he was member of BPL was sought to be supported by nine documents which were produced by him after making arguments in appeal were not heard. But this was believed by the appellate court. Nature of allegation against the petitioner do not justify his assertion that he would maintain the respondent wife only when she agrees to reside with him. In the facts of the present SB CR.REV.P No.1155/10. 4 case, when petitioner has been subjecting the respondent-wife with physical as well as mental torture and this fact has been proved from report of the protection officer, his insistence that he would maintain her wife only when she resides with him, cannot be accepted. Grant of Rs.3000/- per month therefore cannot be said to be unreasonable and excessive. It is settled proposition of law that if husband is capable of earning, cannot be absolved of his responsibility to maintain the wife. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SB CR.REV.P No.1155/10. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1919/2010. IN S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1155/2010. Altaf Ahmed Vs. Smt.Rubina Bano Date of order : 1/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J Shri Tanveer Ahmed for applicant-petitioner. Shri Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** BY THE COURT:- Consequent upon dismissal of the petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil