CR.REVN.76/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO.76/2011 Vijaykumar R.Vincent Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Ms.Shilpa Joshi for petitioner Mr.Deepak Rajbhar for respondent no.2 Ms.S.D.Bhosale,APP for Res.1 CORAM- R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE - 20th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. . Heard Ms.Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Rajbhar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP on behalf of respondent-State. 2 The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 28/9/2010 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court no. 7, Mumbai in Misc. Application No.85/2009 in Petition no. E- 151/2005. By that order the learned Judge has directed the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance at the enhanced rate of Rs.2,500/- each to the wife and son from the date of the application instead of paying them maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m.. CR.REVN.76/11 2 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.2-wife is gainfully employed and consequently is not dependent on the petitioner. She invited my attention to the admission given by respondent no.2 in the cross examination conducted on 5/2/2007 wherein according to her respondent no.2 admitted that after after 2005 she had joined another company called P.H.Medical and she joined there as a Public Relations Officer. She,therefore,submitted that if respondent no.2 is gainfully employed, the Family Court was not justified in enhancing the maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- p.m.each. She submitted that in fact though respondent no.2 is gainfully employed from 2005 she suppressed this material fact and claimed maintenance, which was awarded. As far as the income of the petitioner is concerned,she invited my attention to the affidavit made by Rev.Dr.G.Rajeswara Rao,dated 31st July,2011 and annexure to the affidavit i.e. certificate dated 28/1/2011 wherein said Dr. Rajeswara certified that the petitioner’s remuneration /offering varies from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4000/-per month. In view of this affidavit and certificate, she submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/- p.m.to each, respondent no.2 and her son. She further submitted that the petitioner is a heart patient and has to bear medical expenses. CR.REVN.76/11 3 4 Learned counsel for respondent no.2 invited my attention to paragraph 10 of the application filed by respondent no.2 where it is asserted that she had lost her job and she is unemployed and dependent on her husband for her day today livelihood. She further asserted that her son is 13 years old and she has growing commitments towards him. In paragraph 11 she has asserted that she has to bear her medical expenses and the medical expenses and the fees of extra curricular activities which take place in the school of her minor son. In support of this she has annexed hospital bills, medical bills, school receipts,etc.. 5 I have considered the rival contentions. It is not disputed that respondent no.2 had filed application for enhancement in July,2009. In that application she has positively asserted that she has lost her job and she is unemployed. The learned Judge in paragraph 8 of the impugned order has recorded that the wife claims that the petitioner is providing some services in Church and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He is serving as a lecturer in coaching classes and is totally earning Rs.20,000/- per month, no evidence could be produced regarding the earnings of her husband. All the same, the learned Judged has recorded that looking to the academic qualification of the husband, his earning CR.REVN.76/11 4 cannot be less than Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m.. The learned Judge has enhanced the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- each to Rs.2,500/- each to respondent no.2 and her son. The learned Judge has recorded that the minor child is taking education and having regard to the rising index and rise in the cost of living in Mumbai and looking to the needs of the child it is desirable to enhance the quantum of maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- p.m..I do not find that the learned Judge has committed any error of law while passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. In the result the petition is dismissed. 6 Before parting with the order, I may record that respondent no.2-wife showed her willingness to cohabit with the petitioner- husband provided he joins her at Mumbai. R.G.KETKAR,J.