ms t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.278 OF 2007 Smt.Meena Bharat Gurjar Applicant versus Bharat Gajanan Gurjar Respondent Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for applicant. None for respondent. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 16th June 2008 ORAL JUDGEMENT : (PER:SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.):- 1. The applicant is the wife. In this criminal revision application she has challenged the order dated 06th March 2007 whereby the Family Court, at Mumbai has directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.500/- per month to her as maintenance from the date of order. The applicant has only challenged the quantam of maintenance. 2. The first respondent has been served, however, he has not cared to engage a lawyer. He is not present. In the circumstances, with the help of Mr.Chatuphale, counsel for the applicant, we have proceeded with the matter. 3. According to the applicant, she was married to the first respondent on 2nd December 2001 according to Hindu Vedic Rites. They started residing together after marriage at Nalasopara. The couple has no child. According to the applicant, after marriage, first respondent, his mother and sister started ill-treating and abusing the applicant. The applicant has certain hearing disability. On this count the applicant was ill-treated. According to the applicant, there was Satyanarayana Pooja in her matrimonial house. Members of her family were invited for the Pooja. The first respondent and his family humiliated them as according to them no sufficient dowry was given to them. According to the applicant, on 18th November 2002, she visited her parents house to attend an engagement ceremony. Thereafter, the first respondent refused to accept her in her matrimonial house. In January 2002, once again, she along with her father and one relative visited the matrimonial house, but the first respondent did not take her back and he insisted for divorce. All efforts for reconciliation made by the members of her family failed. She received notice on 6th February 2002 from the first respondent’s advocate. She replied to the said notice on 5th March 2002. She filed some N.C.complaints and also approached the Legal Aid and Advise Committee at Mumbai for reconciliation but the first respondent did not show his willingness for the same. 4. According to the applicant, she is uneducated and unemployed woman and is unable to get job. She has no source of income. First respondent has deserted her for no fault on her part. She is dependent upon her aged parents. The first respondent has failed to maintain her from the date of marriage. Her case is that the first respondent is working at Dahisar and draws salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. He has no liability and does not require to maintain anybody. Hence, the applicant seeks enhancement of maintenance amount. She has prayed that the maintenance amount be enhanced to @ Rs.1,500/- per month. 5. First respondent admitted marriage. He denied the allegations made by the applicant. According to him, the applicant’s family has cheated him by concealing the disability of the applicant. He denied that he had deserted her. He denied that he is drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. According to him, he is working as helper and earns very meagre amount from the said job. He is the only bread earner in his family. His mother is sick and he has to spend on her illness. According to him, the applicant has deserted him without any fault on his part and her application must be dismissed. 6. In support of her claim, the applicant examined herself. First respondent examined himself. After perusing the evidence the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicant had proved that first respondent had neglected her and refused to maintain her; that she was unable to maintain herself and that the first respondent is in a position to pay maintenance to the applicant. The learned Magistrate granted an amount of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. As stated hereinabove, the said order is challenged in this revision application only on the ground of inadequacy of quantum. According to the applicant, the first respondent is earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month and, hence, she deserves to get Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance. 7. In her evidence the petitioner has stated that the respondent is working in a shop namely Royal Store situated at Dahisar (East) drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. In the cross examination she has denied that respondent’s salary was only Rs.2,500/- per month. She has stated in her cross examination that the mediator and the employer of the respondent told her family that respondent’s salary was Rs.4,500/- p.m.. The respondent in his evidence states that he will be able to pay only Rs.400/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent because of his financial unsoundness. We find in the record a certificate issued by Royal Cutlery and General Stores dated 15th April 2004 stating that the respondent is a helper in the shop and his monthly wages are Rs.2,500/- only. However, the owner of the shop has not been examined by the respondent. 8. Though served the respondent has not cared to appear in this Court. The Family Court has directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per month to the applicant as far back as on 21st May 2004. Considering the steep rise in the prices, we feel that the amount of maintenance of Rs.500/- per month needs to be increased from the date of application. The case of the respondent appears to be that his mother is old and he needs to spend on her. Considering this fact, we feel that the amount of maintenance granted @ Rs.500/- per month cannot be increased to Rs.1,500/- p.m. as claimed by the appellant but should be increased to Rs.700/- per month Hence, following order. 9. ORDER :- (a) Impugned order dated 6th March 2007 is set aside to the extent it grants maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month; (b) The respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs.700/- (Rs.Seven hundred only) per month to the appellant towards maintenance instead of Rs.500/- per month; (c) Needless to state that this order will be operative from the date of application; (d) Application disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.278 OF 2007 DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT : 16th June 2008 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :- THE THE THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI THE THE THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE R.P.SONDURBALDOTA HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE R.P.SONDURBALDOTA HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE R.P.SONDURBALDOTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local ) newspapers may be allowed to ) see the judgement ? ) ) 2. To be referred to the Reporters ) or not ? ) ) 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish ) to see the fair copy of the ) judgement ? ) ) 4. Whether this case involves a ) substantial question of law as to ) the interpretation of the ) Constitution of India, 1950 or ) any order made thereunder ? ) ) 5. Whether it is to be circulated ) to the Civil Judges ? ) ) 6. Whether the case involves an ) important question of law and ) whether a copy of the judgement ) should be sent to Nagpur, ) Aurangabad and Goa offices ? )