1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 654 OF 2007 Sandip Rajkumar Sood, ] age 46, Occupation Grocery Shop, ] residing at 529-E, Kadamwadi, ] Kolhapur 416 003 ] Applicant / (Org Respondent) Vs 1. Survinder Kaur Sandip Sood, ] age adult, occupation Nil, ] 2. Kumar Lav Sandip Sood, ] age 11 years, Occ. : Student, ] 3. Kumar Kush Sandip Sood, ] Respondents age 11 years, Occ : student, ] (Org Applicants) Nos. 2 and 3 minors, through ] their mother and natural guardian ] Respondent NO. 1 above ] All residing at 55/4, Bhairao Nagar, ] Dhanori Road, Vishrantwadi, ] Pune 411 015. ] 4. The State of Maharashtra, ] Notice copy to be served on P.P. High ] Court (A.S), Bombay. ] Respondent Mr. Ashok Tajane for the petitioner Ms. Tanmai Gadre holding for N.P. Deshpande for respondent nos 1 to 3 Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for State Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 2 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 512 OF 2008 Sandip Rajkumar Sood, ] age 46, Occupation Grocery Shop, ] residing at 529-E, Kadamwadi, ] Kolhapur 416 003 ] Petitioner (Petitioner) Vs 1. Sarvinder Kaur Sandeep Sood ] Age : 42 Yrs, Occ : Household, ] R/o. C/o. Shri. Shardulsing, ] Re.E.G. 55/4, Bhairav Nagar, ] Dhanori Road, Vishrant Wadi, ] Pune 15. ] 2. Lav Sandeep Sood ] Age : 11 Yrs, Occ : Education, ] 3. Kush Sandeep Sood, ] Age : 11 Yrs, Occ : Education, ] (Nos. 2 and 3 are minors through ] guardian respondent no. 1) ] 4. State of Maharashtra ] Respondents P.R. Arjunwadkar for the applicant Mrs. Tanmai Gadre i/b N.P. Deshpande for respondent nos. 1 to 3 Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for State CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATE : 18th JULY, 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. These revision applications can be disposed of by a common Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 3 order. The challenge in these revision applications is to the order of maintenance passed by the learned judge of the Family court under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The order of maintenance has been passed against the revision applicant / husband at the instance of wife and the minor children. The challenge in criminal writ application no. 654 of 2007 filed by the husband is to the judgment and order dated 4th September, 2007 passed by the Family court. The challenge in the other criminal revision application filed by the husband is to the orders dated 22nd May 2003 and 22nd April, 2001 passed by the Family court. 2. It will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief: On 12th May, 1993, the revision applicant and the first respondent married according to the Hindu Vedic rights. In 1997, the first respondent - wife filed an application under Section 125 of the said Code for seeking maintenance for herself and for her two minor sons. The said application was resisted by the petitioner - husband. In the meanwhile, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 4 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Civil Court at Kolhapur. The Civil Court passed a decree in the said petition on 17th February, 2001. The application under Section 125 was allowed by the learned Judge of the Family court on 22nd April 2001 by directing the applicant - husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month to the first respondent - wife and maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month each to the second and third respondents. In the meanwhile, an attempt was made by the applicant - husband to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The execution application was disposed of on 5th May, 2002. Thereafter, the revision applicant moved an application under Section 127 of the said Code for cancellation of the earlier order passed on 22nd April, 2001 mainly on the ground that there was a decree passed in his favour for restitution of conjugal rights. On 22nd May, 2003, said application made by the husband was rejected by the Family court by observing that there was no change in the circumstances. In March 2002, the first respondent filed a petition for divorce against the revision applicant. The said petition for divorce was dismissed on 24th June, 2003. Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 5 3. Thereafter, there was an application filed by the first respondent for enhancement of maintenance. By order dated 4th September, 2007, the learned judge of the Family court enhanced the maintenance amount payable to the first respondent to Rs. 1200/- per month and maintenance to the second and third respondent at Rs. 1000/- per month each. The first two orders passed by the Family court on 22nd April, 2001 and 22nd May, 2003 are challenged by filing revision application no. 512 of 2008 and the third order granting enhancement has been challenged by the husband by filing criminal revision application no. 654 of 2007. The revision applications have been argued on behalf of the applicant by two different counsel. As far as, criminal revision application no. 512 of 2008 is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant - husband invited my attention to the decree passed in favour of the applicant of the restitution of conjugal rights. His submission is that the applicant - husband showed readiness and willingness to co-habit with the first respondent - wife after obtaining decree for restitution of conjugal rights. He made efforts to get the said decree executed but wife did not respond. As a result, the execution proceedings was disposed of. He invited my attention to the judgment Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 6 delivered by the Family court by which the petition for divorce filed by the first respondent - wife was dismissed. He pointed out that not only that the allegation of cruelty and desertion made by the first respondent - wife were not established, but the learned judge of the Family court has held that the applicant was ready and willing to cohabit with the first respondent wife and the first respondent has declined. He, therefore, submitted that the order of maintenance could not have been initially passed by the learned judge of the Family court as refusal or neglect on the part of husband to maintain the wife was not established. He submitted that there is further finding recorded in the petition for divorce filed by the first respondent which shows that it was the first respondent - wife who was not ready to cohabit with the applicant. He submitted that the Family Court ought to have set aside the earlier order by exercising powers under Section 127 of the said Code on the basis of the subsequent decree of dismissal of the Petition of the wife. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant in support of revision application no. 654 of 2007 has generally adopted Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 7 the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant in other revision application and has made further submissions on the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family court vide order dated 4th September, 2007. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Family court. He submitted that in fact, the first respondent - wife was running a beauty parlour and was earning a handsome income. He stated that the fact that the applicant was forced to spend sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the medical treatment of his mother has been held against the applicant. He submitted that the applicant had to borrow the amount and evidence to that has been adduced. He invited my attention to the notes of evidence and other documents placed on record for the revision application. He pointed out that the applicant had come out with a clear case that his earnings were Rs. 1600/- to 1700/- per month from the grocery shop. He pointed out that the evidence on record shows that the monthly income of the applicant was not in excess of Rs. 2000/- per month. He submitted that the inference drawn by the learned judge as regards the income of the applicant only on the basis of the amount spent for medical treatment of the mother was totally unwarranted. He pointed Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 8 out that the evidence has been adduced to show that the applicant was forced to borrow the amount. He submitted that no case was made out for enhancing the amount of maintenance. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / wife placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case Mrs. Amina Mohammedali Khoja Vs Mohammedali Ramjanali Khoja and Another (1985 CRI.L.J. 1909). She submitted that only on the basis of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband, maintenance under Section 125 of the said Code cannot be denied. She pointed out that the first respondent never had any objection for staying with the applicant provided that the applicant was willing to stay away from his sister. She submitted that no fault can be found with the first respondent - wife for not staying with the husband as she was always ready and willing to stay with the husband provided he was willing to stay alone with her. She has placed reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in case of Julient Vasantha Vs Antony Marimuthu (1985 CRI.L. J. 1613). She pointed out that as far as decree dismissing the petition for divorce is concerned, the first Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 9 respondent - wife has preferred an appeal in this court which is pending before the Division Bench of this court. In reply, the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the first respondent never intended to stay with the applicant. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. The perusal of the first order dated 22nd April, 2001 passed by the Family court under Section 125 of the said Code shows that the said Court was made aware about the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the applicant. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the learned judge of the Family court has referred to the allegation of cruelty made by the first respondent. As far as, the income is concerned, the learned judge considered the admitted position that the applicant - husband was running a general store by the names 'Sandeep General Stores'. In Paragraph 16 of the judgment, the learned judge has referred to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the applicant. On this aspect, it is necessary to consider the decision of this court in case of Mrs. Amina Mohammedali Khoja (Supra). Paragraph 6 of the said decision of this court reads thus: Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 10 "From these observations made by the Division Bench of this Court it is more than clear that merely because a husband had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, the order passed in favour of the wife for maintenance under Section 488 of the Cr.P.C (old) cannot be cancelled under Section 489 of the said Code. This being the position in law, let it be emphatically mentioned here that an oder of maintenance can always be passed in favour of the wife even if the husband had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her unless it is well established that she had willfully deserted her husband and was not willing to stay with him without reasonable cause or sufficient reasons." Thus what has been held by this court in the said decision is that the order of maintenance can be passed in favour of the wife even if the husband has obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife unless it was well established that she was not ready and willing to stay with him without reasonable cause or sufficient reasons. The first respondent has set out in her evidence the instances of cruelty on the part of the applicant's sister. She stated that she was wiling to cohabit with the applicant provided he agreed to stay separately from his sister. This case made out by the first respondent has been accepted by the Family Court. Therefore, the Family Court accepted that the first respondent was forced to stay with parents. Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 11 7. While fixing the quantum of maintenance, the learned judge observed that the applicant / husband was having a grocery shop at place like Kadamwadi, Kolhapur and therefore, it must be inferred that the applicant was getting reasonably good income. This observation was made in the light of the admitted fact that the applicant was running a grocery shop. It must be noted that in the original application for maintenance, the total amount made payable by the learned Family Court was Rs. 1800/- per month to the first respondent as well as two minor children. When it was an admitted position that the applicant was running a grocery shop in a city like Kolhapur, maintenance amount of Rs. 1800/- per month fixed in the year 2001 cannot be said to be exorbitant or unreasonable. 8. As stated earlier, grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights by itself is no ground to grant maintenance when there was evidence brought on record by the first respondent - wife regarding the existence of the circumstances which prevented her from cohabiting with the applicant. In application under Section 127 of the said Code filed by the applicant, the learned Judge of the Family court has noted Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 12 that the husband had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and has come to the conclusion that such a decree by itself was not sufficient to vacate the earlier order especially when the fact of having obtained the said decree was earlier brought to the notice of the court while fixing the maintenance amount. Perusal of the judgment in the divorce petition filed by the first respondent shows that apart from the allegations against the applicant and other members of the family, specific allegations have been made against the sisters of the applicant as regards cruelty. It is true that the Family court did not find favour with the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by the first respondent. However, a substantive appeal against the decree of dismissal of the petition is pending in this Court and therefore the findings recorded on divorce petition filed by the first respondent have not attained finality. 9. It must be borne in mind that remedy under Section 125 of the said Code is a summary remedy. The object of the provision is to make available speedy and effective remedy to the wife to obtain orders of maintenance. It is not possible to find fault with the first two orders Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 13 passed by the Family Court on 22nd April, 2001 and 22nd May, 2003. 10. It will be necessary to refer to the impugned order in the other revision application by which the monthly allowance was enhanced. The first respondent - wife stepped into the witness box and stated that the applicant was running a general store and was doing business as an estate agent. She has stated that her two sons had passed 5th standard and they were taking education in an English medium school at Vishrantiwadi, Pune. She stated that she was required to incur expenses about Rs. 5000/- per month as her sons were travelling to the school by auto rickshaw. Two specific assertions were made in examination in chief by the first respondent that the applicant was running a big general stores and was working as an estate agent. The first respondent further stated that the applicant has let out rooms on the rent. Surprisingly, there is no suggestion given in her cross- examination on these aspects and only a general suggestion was given that the financial condition of the applicant was not sound. Therefore, it can be presumed that apart from running a shop, the applicant was acting as an estate agent. She denied that she was conducting a beauty Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 14 parlour business. The applicant stepped into the witness box and claimed that his financial condition was poor and he was earning income of Rs. 2000/- per month. He stated that for the medical treatment of his mother, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- in the year 1997. The applicant examined his sister who contended that the applicant was very poor. Another witness Ramkumar was examined to show that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the applicant - husband. 11. It will be necessary to refer to the judgment and order dated 04th September, 2007 which is impugned in the criminal revision application no. 654 of 2007. The earlier order was passed in the year 2001. The learned judge of the Family court observed that from the year 2001, income of the applicant increased. As stated earlier, the said application was decided on 4th September, 2007 i.e after a period of six years after the earlier maintenance was fixed. By the order dated 4th September, 2007 which is impugned in the said revision application, the applicant has been directed to pay enhanced amount @ Rs. 1200/- per month to the first respondent and the enhanced Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 15 amount @ Rs. 1000/-per month from 23rd September, 2005. Thus, the total enhancement granted is only of Rs. 1400/- per month. As stated earlier, the original order of maintenance was passed on 22nd April, 2001. The subsequent order of enhancement was passed nearly six years thereafter. It must be stated here that the original order under Section 125 has attained finality and the finding on the liability of the applicant to maintenance has become final. After expiry of about six years, the maintenance amount has been increased by total sum of Rs. 1400/- per month. Considering this aspect,the maintenance amount enhanced by the Family court cannot be faulted with. 12. In the revisional jurisdiction, no inference is called for the impugned orders. The revision applications are accordingly dismissed. It is obvious that if the first respondent fails in the appeal pending before the Division Bench of this Court, it will be open for the applicant to make an appropriate application on the basis of the said decision. Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw 16 13. It is obvious that as a consequence of rejection of the revision applications, ad interim order, if any operating till today stands vacated. 14. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for limited purposes for considering the legality and validity for the orders passed under Section 125 of the said Code. JUDGE Rma revn654-07&512-08.sxw