1 revn504-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Revision Application No. 504 of 2010 Jaya Girija Kunder .. Applicant v/s. Parvinder Kaur & Another ..Respondents Mr.R.R.Salve i/b. Suvarna Telgote for the for the Applicant Mr.G.B.Pawar for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18th March, 2011 P.C. : 1. The applicant had filed M.J.Petition No.230 of 1988 at City Civil Court at Bombay and in the said petition by decree dated 12.1.1989 the said petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was decided and decree for divorce was passed. It is noticed that between the parties, consent terms were arrived at and the petitioner had agreed that the sum of Rs.2,35,000/- shall be paid to the respondent by way of maintenance as lump sum permanent alimony. The present respondent has filed maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the Family Court at Bombay being Petition No.E- 206 of 2008. That application was decided by the learned Judge of 2 revn504-10.sxw the Family Court by order dated 23.6.2010. The learned Judge directed the petitioner to pay to respondent the sum of Rs.3000/- per month from 18.3.2008. This order dated 23.6.2010 is challenged by filing this Criminal Revision Application. 2. The parties herein got chance to lead evidence and the learned Judge of the Family Court appreciated the evidence and the learned Judge of the Family Court appreciated the evidence and recorded finding that the petitioner has not paid Rs.2,35,000/- which were agreed to be paid towards permanent alimony as per the consent terms. After recording this finding, learned Judge of the Family Court went on to decide the earning capacity of the petitioner, requirement of the respondent and granted maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner contended that he had paid to the respondent a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- and therefore there was no question of payment of any alimony thereafter. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to point out to the court as to how the said amount has been paid and produce the documentary evidence to show that the said amount has been paid. The said 3 revn504-10.sxw efforts could not bear any fruits. Since the petitioner had not paid the sum of Rs.2,35,000/- the respondent was justified in applying for maintenance. 4. After having gone through the impugned order dated 23.6.2010 as also the evidence which was annexed to the petitioner, it is required to be noted that financial ability of the petitioner has been rightly arrived at by the learned Judge of the Family Court and has fixed the quantum of maintenance of Rs.3000/- being a reasonable amount of maintenance. If the promise to pay Rs.2,35,000/- would have been fulfilled, possibly, the respondent would have been in difficulty to apply for monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/-. That obligation is not fulfilled. The respondent is entitled to maintenance and the same has been rightly granted by the Family Court. For the reasons aforesaid, no interference is required. Hence revision application is rejected. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]