1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2009 Shameem Mohamad Husain ... Applicant Vs. 01. Mohamad Husain Iqbal Husain Shaikh 02. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. R. L. Majgaonkar for the Applicant Respondent No.1 in person CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. Dated :- 8th September, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 01. Criminal revision application is filed against the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra in the matter of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant wife filed a petition for maintenance in the Family Court. Both the applicant and the 1st respondent are Muslims and the applicant is a second wife 2 of the 1st respondent. First wife of the respondent died earlier and he has four children out of the first wedlock. 02. The learned Judge of the Family Court has rejected the petition of the maintenance filed by the applicant wife, on the ground that the applicant is graduate and she takes tuitions to earn her livelihood. The applicant has admitted the fact that she was earning Rs.2000 to 2500/- per month from the tuitions. Secondly, the Family Court Judge has accepted and held the income of the 1st respondent is nearly Rs.4,500 to 6,000/- per month. However, while giving finding on point No.1, the judge has held that the 1st respondent husband had refused and neglected to maintain the applicant and he has not believed the version of the applicant on the point of ill treatment by the 1st respondent husband. 03. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that though the applicant was taking tuitions, at present, she is not in a position to take it due to her ill health and, therefore, she has preferred this petition challenging the 3 order of the Family Court. 04. The 1st respondent has appeared in person and submitted that he is always ready and willing to live family life with the applicant. He submitted that the applicant has an independent source of income and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge of the family Court is just and legal. 05. Though the applicant has admitted the fact of taking tuitions in the cross-examination, her counsel has submitted that due to ill health it is not possible for her to go to the houses of the students who are the girl students and it has affected her earning. Today, both the applicant and 1st respondent are present before the Court. Assuming that the applicant may be taking tuitions earlier of 5 students, today considering her health problems, it cannot be accepted that she has totally stopped taking tuitions. However, the fact that due to her ill health there may be a reduction in her income of the tuition fees. The applicant has lodged a complaint against 1st respondent and she has submitted that she has been mentally 4 harassed by the 1st respondent. Per contra the 1st respondent has denied these allegations. Thus, today there are allegations in the nature of words against words. Under these circumstances there is no propriety in denying total right of maintenance of the applicant wife. While deciding the amount of maintenance, this Court takes into account the family responsibility of the 1st respondent i.e. his four children. Therefore, the order of giving some minimum amount towards the maintenance may strike the balance. With this, the order of the Family Court dated 26.11.2008 is set aside. The present application is allowed with the following order. O R D E R The 1st respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs.500/- per month to the applicant-wife. The amount is to be given from February, 2007 i.e. after filing of the petition. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 5