1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2009 Abdul Shakur s/o. Abdul Khalique, age 29 years occ. labour, R/o. Bhagli, tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. - - - Petitioner versus Mrs. Nuzhat Fatema w/o. Abdul Shakur, age 25 years, occ. household, R/o. Kiradpura, Near Ram Mandir, Near National Stall Centre, Aurangabad, C/o. Sayed Tarkhe Quadri. - - Respondent Shri K. C. Sant, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. C. E. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 7th August 2009 PER COURT: 1. Criminal revision application is taken up for hearing with consent forthwith. 2 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner by way of this revision application prays that the impugned judgment and order dated 9-7-2008 passed by leaned Principal Judge of Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.E-412/2006 be quashed and set aside. The impugned order is for granting maintenance by Family Court under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after hearing both the sides on merits. Alternatively, it was also prayed for remand of the case in order to allow the petitioner to engage Advocate for defending his case before the Family Court, Aurangabad. 4. Perused the impugned order which is at Exhibit E. The application of respondent wife was allowed partly for Rs.750/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13-12-2006 and cost of the proceedings Rs.1250/- and it is informed that the execution proceedings for the recovery of arrears of maintenance as per the order. 3 Meantime, petitioner husband filed criminal revision application mainly on the ground that the petitioner was always ready and willing to cohabit and maintain his wife and she has not made out her case for separate maintenance and there is no evidence of neglect or refusal. He has also given his offer and shown willingness to maintain her even today. During the course of hearing, it revealed that criminal prosecution is pending against present petitioner husband on complaint of wife registered under section 498A of I.P. Code namely; subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the charge sheet has been filed agianst him. Therefore, there is no point in going into question of readiness and willingness shown by the husband to maintain his wife in order to defeat her claim for maintenance. It must be borne in mind that right of maintenance is the right of wife from the date of marriage. Only under section 125 of Cr.P.C. she has right 4 to claim separate maintenance and it can be separately ordered on proof of neglect or refusal and that husband is having sufficient means. Despite this, he is not providing maintenance. The provision is not only meant for the wife but also for children and aged parents who are not only dependent but have right to be maintained by him. Therefore, on merits, no case is made out by the petitioner husband. The trial Court allowed her claim for separate maintenance. I do not find any illegality in such proceedings culminated in favour of respondent wife. The Family Court is within its power and jurisdiction to hear such application separately made or even other matrimonial proceedings. These are speedy remedies and must be given effect to. So far as amount of Rs.750/- per month is concerned, it is meagre amount which husband should immediately pay to her as separate maintenance or even part if she is living jointly or separately. It is Rs.25/- per day. Only because the High Court 5 has powers under section 397 of Cr.P.C. to entertain the revision, the same cannot be abused for such criminal application unless the order of subordinate Criminal Courts is patently illegal or without jurisdiction. The execution proceedings to go ahead. Criminal revision application stands dismissed and accordingly disposed of. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) pnk/crira5209