* 1 * REVN-342-2011 7.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 342 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT PETITION NO. E-282 OF 2009 ALONGWITH MISC. APPLICATION NO. 287 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 342 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT PETITION NO. E-282 OF 2009 Sudarshan Seshadri ......Applicant/Orig.Respondent V/S. Sri Priya Sudarshan ......Respondent/Orig.Petitioner * * * * Mr. Viral Shukla i/by. M/s. Shukla & Associates, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for the State. CORAM :- R.G. KETKAR, J. 7 October, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Kezriwal, learned APP for the State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2011 passed by the learned * 2 * REVN-342-2011 7.10.2011 Judge, Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. E-282 of 2009. By that order, the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as and by way of maintenance from the date of the petition i.e. 30th May, 2009. 3. In support of his petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions :- (i) Whether the respondent-wife proved that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the maintenance and further whether the petitioner husband has neglected or refused to maintain her ? (ii) Whether the respondent-wife proved that she is unable to maintain herself ? (iii) Whether the respondent-wife was entitled to claim maintenance and if yes what should be the quantum of maintenance ? 4. In support of his first contention, he submitted that the petitioner has no sufficient means and having regard to his expenses, he has no paying capacity. He submitted that the salary of the petitioner-husband is Rs.14,000/- per month and his monthly expenses are to the tune of Rs.14,066/-. In addition, he has to maintain his mother who is aged about 81 years. He therefore submitted that he has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance. * 3 * REVN-342-2011 7.10.2011 5. In so far as the aspect of neglect or refusal is concerned, he submitted that the respondent on her own voluntarily left the matrimonial home and deserted the petitioner on 18th February, 2009. The petitioner is ready and willing to cohabit with her even today. However, on the other hand the respondent-wife has deserted him and left the matrimonial home which is at Chennai and came down to Mumbai. He therefore submitted that there is neither neglect nor refusal to maintain the respondent-wife. 6. In so far as the second contention, namely, whether the respondent has proved that she is unable to maintain herself is concerned, he submitted that the respondent is more qualified than the petitioner. She is an M.A. B’Ed and prior to her marriage she was working as a teacher in Mumbai and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. Even after marriage, she was working as Teacher in Chennai and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He therefore submitted that it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself. 7. Finally, he submitted that though the respondent deposed that her domestic expenses are to the tune of Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month, she has not laid any evidence to substantiate the said claim. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. * 4 * REVN-342-2011 7.10.2011 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.14,000/-. The petitioner has sufficient means to pay maintenance. In so far as his first submission is concerned, the learned Judge of the Family Court, on the basis of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband was aware of the health problems of the respondent including diabetes and spongy kidney. The respondent has stayed with her father since 2008 and no evidence was led by the petitioner to show that he made any efforts to call her back. The learned Judge recorded finding that the petitioner was not regularly paying the amount of maintenance to the respondent-wife who is suffering from illness. She was required to take medicines and is on dialysis. Based on the appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge came to be conclusion that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent-wife. 9. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that because of the various health problems such as diabetis, glucoma in one eye and spongy kidney the respondent is not able to work now though earlier she was working as a teacher. The said fact is duly supported by medical papers on record. * 5 * REVN-342-2011 7.10.2011 10. Lastly, as far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, having regard to the fact that the respondent has to incur medical expenses, as also the domestic expenses as also further having due regard to the fact that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 14,000/- the learned Judge of the Family Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. I am not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioneer that monthly expenses of the petitioner is Rs.14,066/- and he has to maintain his aged mother. It is not in dispute that the relationship of husband and wife subsists and the husband is bound to maintain his wife. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned judgment and record, as also the material on record, I do not find that the learned Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order. The amount of maintenance awarded is reasonable. No case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. With the dismissal of the main application, the Misc. Application becomes infructuous and does not survive. The same is also dismissed. [R.G. KETKAR, J]