1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.542/2007 Martin John Aware Applicant VS. Sophia Martin Aware & Ors. Respondent Mr.Vikas Shivarkar for the applicant Mr.S.R.Shinde APP for State CORAM:Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J. DATE :23rd July,2009. P.C. 1] Heard finally and disposed of by consent of the parties. 2] This Revision application is filed by the applicant challenging the judgment and order dated 26/4/2007 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court ,Pune directing the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the minor daughter Respondent no.2 and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses. The petition was filed by the wife against husband for maintenance under section125 of Cr.P.C.. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized according to the Christian Religion . A daughter was born out of the said wedlock. The respondent went for delivery to her parents house and then refused to return and has continued to stay willfully with her parents without any legal reason. At present the custody of the daughter is with the respondent. The petitioner has denied all the allegations of the respondent against him . It is his case that he is ready 2 and willing to maintain the respondent and his daughter. He admits that he is drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m.but after deductions he takes Rs. 3000/- p.m.at home . It is contended that the petitioner is practicing advocate and is earning Rs.10,000/- p.m.. The Family Court,Pune has granted maintenance as stated earlier. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of the Family Court the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing and setting aside the said order and judgment. 3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has left the house and is not ready and willing to come to reside with the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner wants to live good family life with the respondent alongwith their daughter. However, the respondent who wants to stay separate is not entitled to claim any maintenance from him. He has further submitted that the respondent who was practicing advocate wants to harass him and therefore has surrendered her Sanad and LIC agency. 4] The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has admitted that the respondent was advocate but justified her act of surrendering the Sanad on the ground of pregnancy and motherhood. He has argued that the respondent was tortured by her mother in law who is staying with the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner owns two houses and hence the petitioner and the respondents can stay away from the mother in law of respondent no.1. 3 5] It appears from the submissions of both the learned counsel that there is no big issue between both the parties except some psychological adjustment on the issue of mother of the petitioner . In such a matter there are good chances of settlement. 6] Considering the educational qualification of the respondent it can be safely inferred that she has capacity to earn. The act of surrendering Sanad reveals her refusal to work and earn. However,it will not disqualify her from her entitlement to be maintained by the husband. It will affect the amount of maintenance in future . Now she is looking after their minor daughter who is four years old. At present she being a single parent has to give full time to their child. The child needs such care and attention and therefore the respondent will not get spare time till the child goes to first standard. 7] Therefore,at present the order passed by the learned Magistrate needs no interference in the amount of maintenance. The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh petition if there is any change of circumstance. 8] If the source of income is available to the respondent/wife as per her educational qualification then it should not be closed without any good reason. The petition stands rejected and disposed of accordingly. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)