1 W.P.5585.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5585 OF 2010 Ananta S/o Vasudeo Nhavkar, Aged: 26 Years,Occup.: Agril., R/o Bodhwad, Tq. Muktainagar Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Smt.Aruna W/o Ananta Nhavkar, Age: 21 Years, Occup.: Household, through Ramchandra Gangadhar Patil, (Taide), R/o Nandra-Haveli, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT ... Shri.Vijay Patil,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. P.N.Kutti,Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12th April, 2010, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 474 of 2009, thereby awarded Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month as maintenance pendente-lite and also awarded Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards 2 W.P.5585.10 expenses of litigation. 2. It is common ground that, the parties are married, but are staying separately due to dispute and estrangement. It is also common ground that the respondent-wife filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the petitioner seeking maintenance etc. I am told that, evidence of the parties in the said application has been recorded. During pendency of such application, the respondent-wife filed present Hindu Marriage Petition, in November, 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed an application for maintenance pendente-lite. 3. The petitioner-husband opposed this application mainly on the ground that it is respondent-wife, who is guilty of the desertion. He asserted that the respondent -wife left his company without any fault on his part. He further said that, during the period of cohabitation, respondent-wife refused conjugal rights to him. He said, the respondent-wife expressly indicated that she did not like him, as husband. The application was opposed also on the ground that, in the cross examination, recorded in above mentioned proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent-wife made several admissions during her cross examination indicating that for no fault of the petitioner-husband, she had left him etc. 4. The learned Judge of the trial Court rejected this defence and held that since the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner, she has no source of income to maintain herself and since her petition is pending for restitution of conjugal rights, she was entitled to maintenance. I find no error in the approach and appreciation of the evidence by the learned Judge of the trial Court. 3 W.P.5585.10 Today, I am told that, the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is still pending, so it cannot be said that admissions made by the respondent-wife in the cross examination, in that case had proved, fatal to her case. An admissions given by a wife in other case could be utilized as defence by the husband and can be used as circumstance against her but obviously it would be as weak one. Much less an admission sought to be used out of context given during cross-examination should be as far as possible avoided while appreciating an application for maintenance pendente-lite. 5. The learned counsel for respondent then submitted that the impugned order granting Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance, is exorbitant. But I am not inclined to accept this submission. The maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month would be hardly sufficient for grown up of persons’ needs. However, I am not inclined to disturb the impugned order. The petition should, therefore, fail. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- [ A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] MTK/ok