1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 47/2010 KISHOR S/O BABAN GAVALEKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mrs. Seema P. Malode, Advocate for applicant. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.R. Imale, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Date : 8th September, 2010 ORAL ORDER : - 1 This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Aurangabad dated 10/12/2009 in petition No. E-169/2009. 2 The respondents had filed this petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., against the applicant. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The applicant is husband of the respondent No. 1. Their marriage took place way back in 1996 and their son the respondent No.2 is now almost 14 years old. Some time, in December, 2008 the respondents left the house of the applicant. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that she was harassed by her husband for demand of dowry etc.. 3 As against this, the applicant along with 2 denial of this harassment, asserted that the respondent wanted to live separately, from joint family and in order to press her demand, she left him. He said, he requested her to come back. He also asserted that he told her that he was unable to maintain separate family away from his parents who were old and depending on him. 4 The learned judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, having heard the parties in person, drew a conclusion that it was the applicant who harassed the respondent No.1 and had neglected to maintain the respondents. The learned judge had an opportunity to interact with the parties and had expressed his opinion against the applicant. One of the reasons recorded by the learned judge of the Family Court, as to why he did not accept the case of the applicant, is rather incorrect. The learned judge said that since the applicant did not issue a legal notice to the respondent wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights, he was guilty of the neglect and harassing her. I do not agree with this reason. The parties had separated only for six months and during such a short time, the husband would not go to a lawyer to issue a notice for restitution of conjugal rights. He would try to convince his wife either himself or taking help from elderly members of his family etc.. However this laps on the part of the learned judge, would not be fatal to the ultimate conclusion he drew, against the applicant. The learned judge rightly held that the parties stayed together for a long period of 13 years. If the parties had lived for a long period of 13 years, respondent No.1 wife would not suddenly go away 3 leaving company of her husband, upon whom she depended financially also without there being a strong reason. In addition to this, one may also say that if the respondent No.1 stayed with her husband for a long period of 13 years, in a joint family, she would not insist on separate residence suddenly after 13 years and on that demand, she would not leave him even if she wanted a separate residence. In any case, the respondent No.1’s desire to have a separate residence is not unjustified. After 13 years of stay in a joint family, if a married woman wants to stay separate and to have her own house, it can not be said to be unreasonable demand. After marriage, a couple becomes an independent unit for some personal things even in a joint family. They have their own privacy and their own private world, and after few days of stay in a joint family, if they or one of them desires to stay separately, it can not be considered to be a unjustified or unreasonable desire. The other spouse as far as possible ought to honour such desire and make separate arrangement. 5 As far as the income of the respondent is concerned, the learned judge of the Family Court, drew his inference quite correctly. He rejected applicant’s case that he was earning only Rs.1,500/- as an auto rickshaw driver in Aurangabad City. He held and rightly so that the income of the applicant as an auto rickshaw driver could not be less than Rs.6,000/- per month. 6 In view of this, the revision deserves to be 4 dismissed. ORDER a) The revision application dismissed. b) In view of this, the application filed by the respondents for withdrawal of the amount, is allowed as prayed for. c) Stay for execution of the order also stands vacated. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/cra47.10/ok