1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 38/2008 Mohd. Abid Sheikh Rehman ..vs.. Salehya Aseem w/o Mohd Abid --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. M. Jibhkate, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H.M.S. Athar, Advocate for non applicant. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 22 nd SEPTEMBER,2009 1. Non applicant filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur for maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court by judgment and order dated 31.10.2007 granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month to the non applicant and Rs. 1000/- also came to be awarded as litigation expenses. This order dated 31.10.2007 is challenged by this Criminal Revision. 2. I have extensively herd learned Advocates for both the sides. It is the case of the applicant that on 09.05.2006, he gave Talaq to non applicant by following provisions of Muslim Law and original Talaqnama was 2 served upon the non applicant and that is how the applicant claimed that he is not liable to pay maintenance to the non applicant. 3. Before learned Judge, Family Court, the applicant examined himself as well as one person who is said to have acted as witness of Talaq by name Nazir. 4. I have perused the evidence of the applicant as well as said Nazir. On consideration of the said evidence, it is seen that the said Nazir does not speak with reference to the Talaq. It was necessary for the applicant to prove the said Talaqnama by examining a person, who had acted as witness. 5. In view of above, it is not possible for this Court to accept the case of the applicant that he had duly divorced the non applicant. If this be so, the stand of the applicant that he had duly divorced the non applicant was rightly rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court. In view of above, the stand of the applicant that he is not liable to pay maintenance cannot be accepted. 7. Insofar as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the learned Judge has fixed the sum of 3 Rs. 1,500/- per month to be paid as maintenance. The applicant claims that he works as Labourer. According to him, he earns Rs. 50 to 60 per day. These words of the applicant are difficult to be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a person working as Labourer easily earns to the extent of Rs. 3000/- per month. If this be so, the quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Judge Family Court cannot be considered as unreasonable. The learned Judge has arrived at an appropriate and reasonable figure of Rs. 1,500/- per month. No interference is required therein. Hence, the application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the following order is passed. The revision application is dismissed at the stage of admission. JUDGE kahale