1 Criminal Revision Application No.111/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.111 OF 2010 Salika w/o Mukund Shirsath ... PETITIONER VERSUS Mukund s/o Subhash Shirsath & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.B. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioner Shri R.V. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 31st January, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. The counsel for the respondent/ husband called in the morning session and now in the afternoon session, absent. 2. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, modifying the order in Criminal Misc. Application No.108/2008 is questioned by the wife. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Renapur, directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/-, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.18,000/- towards medical expenses. The husband was also directed to return 2 Criminal Revision Application No.111/2010 Stridhan, as per list, amounting to Rs.1,19,000/-, costs of Rs.2000/- for the proceedings and separate residence. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, did not disturb the monthly maintenance. However, instead of Rs.2,00,000/-, compensation is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, the medical expenses are reduced to Rs.2000/- the costs is kept the same. The prayer of Stridhan of Rs.1,19,000/-, is rejected. 5. The learned District Judge found the wife did not claim separate residence in the house of the husband and consequently, the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on this count for separate residence could not be said to be legal. I do not see any mistake on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to this extent. 6. The husband is a Peon in indira Gandhi Deaf and Dumb School, drawing a salary of Rs.3825/- and withdraws Rs. 875/-, excluding the deductions. These deductions are illusory in nature shroud to avoid maintenance and the learned Sessions Judge is justified in clamping maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- month as was done by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 3 Criminal Revision Application No.111/2010 7. The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- slapped could not have been so done considering the nature of earnings of the husband and absence of any evidence from the wife. The learned District Judge was justified in reversing the same. 8. On the point of award of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, counsel submits, it is spread over for a period of four years, it need not be disturbed. The reasons assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class for such exorbitant compensation are spelt out in paragraph No.11 of his judgment. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class indicates that the compensation does not appear to be imaginary as the ill-treatment was from 13.3.2007. These observations of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class are contrary to record and he was certainly swayed away from the facts as the husband is a Peon, coming equally from the same standard of life, could not arrange to pay Rs.50,000/- each year and particularly when he has already been slashed to pay Rs. 2000/- a month as maintenance. Modification by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this context, as referred in paragraph No.15 thereof is just, no perversity can be demonstrated and consequently, does not call for interference. 4 Criminal Revision Application No.111/2010 So far as medical expenses are concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class awarded the sum of Rs.18,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.2000/-. I find, the wife could have naturally required Rs.2000/- a month since she was to spend the expenses to attend the medical officer during her pregnancy and hence, the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is modified from Rs.2000/- to Rs.18,000/-. 9. The claim for the Stridhan or earnings is not considered for when there is elaborate discussion according to learned District Judge in paragraph No.17 and I do not see any illegality or error on his part. 10. The survey of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, does not call for any interference, barring modification of medical expenses from Rs.2000/- to Rs.18,000/- and the cost from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Revision Application partly allowed to the extent as above. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/crrra111.10