* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 411 OF 2009 Mrs.Farida Begum Firoz Shaikh @ Pappu ....Applicant/Petitioner V/s. Mr.Firoz Mohd.Husain Shaikh @ Pappu .....Respondent ======= Mr.R.V.Sankpal i/by. M/s.R.V.Sankpal and Associates,adv.for applicant. Mr.Chetain Akerkar, adv.for respondent no.1. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 11TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner-wife to challenge the order dated 11th November, 2008 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai partly allowing her application filed under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance. By the impugned order, the Family Court refused maintenance to the applicant and awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the minor son, Danish from the date of the order till he attends majority. The refusal of the maintenance to the applicant was * 2 * on the ground that she failed to establish that the respondent-husband having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain her. 3. The applicant and respondent no.1 got married on 22nd December, 2008. Three years after the marriage, son Danish was born. The applicant alleges that since 16th January, 2006 she is forced to reside with her parents, as the respondent and his family members have treated her with cruelty and neglected to maintain her and son, Danish. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 12th September, 2005 and despite request and notices from the respondent, refused to return. The respondent finally divorced her by pronouncing talaq and forwarded the Demand Draft for the amount of meher. 4. Both the parties examined themselves in support of their respective cases. While appreciating the evidence, the Family Court observed that the applicant has not come to the court with reliable evidence. Her documents and deposition are inconsistent with each other and she has exaggerated incidents of harrasement day by day. The Court found her not to be a reliable witness. For instance, the applicant initially pleaded that the respondent used to send her to her parents house every now and then saying that he was not having sufficient money and she should stay with her parents. Later, she pleaded and deposed that respondent used to send her parental house for making demands of money. 5. As regards the alleged harrasement meted out to the applicant, she alleges that her in-laws harassed her for dowry. They were * 3 * providing only one time meal to her and they were not taking care of the child. The applicant has neither pleaded nor given evidence of any particular incident of harrasement. 6. The applicant has refused that she received the notice of talaq alongwith certificate of talaq with Demand Draft of Rs.500/-. According to the respondent, she had refused to accept the notice and the envelope had returned back to him. He produced the envelope (Exhibit-39) with endorsement of “unclaimed” thereon. The envelope contained notice dated 6th February, 2006 (Exhibit-40), copy of talaqnama dated 3rd February, 2006 and another envelope (Exhibit-42) which had also returned with endorsement “unclaimed” and notice dated 23rd January, 2006 (Exhibit-43). These documents falsify the claim of the applicant that she did not receive the notice. It is thus established by the respondent that he has already divorced the applicant who therefore is not entitled to maintenance. On the background of these facts, in my opinion, the order passed by the Family Court cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]