1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Rev. Application No. 2 of 2011 Sudhakar v. Sau Sunita ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr R.A. Deshmukh, Adv for applicant Mr V.T. Deshpande, Adv for respdt Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 4th August 2011 1. By this revision petition, the applicant-husband questions legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Amravati in Petition No. E-22/2010 granting maintenance of Rs. 7500/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of petition in addition to litigation cost of Rs. 3000/-. 2. It is borne out from record that applicant-husband had filed Petition being HMP No. A-269 of 2009 before the Family Court at Amravati for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-wife. Since the applicant-husband failed to comply with the order of interim maintenance made in that petition, the same came to be dismissed. It is further borne out from record that respondent-wife has filed petition under Sections 12,18,19,20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence (Prevention) Act as also suit for declaration and permanent injunction for alienation of immovable property against the applicant-husband as also Petition No. C-16 of 2010 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for lumpsum maintenance of Rs. 10 lacs for her residential place, medical treatment and for her livelihood which are all pending. 3. According to the applicant-husband his annual income for the assessment year 2008-09 was Rs. 16,100/- and the same is Rs. 16,800/- for 2 the assessment year 2009-10 and he has filed I.T. Returns to that effect. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not considered the annual income of the applicant and the maintenance granted is very much on higher side. He submits that the applicant has to maintain his old-aged mother also. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the revision on the ground that the respondent-wife had proved all the ingredients required to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. It is not disputed that the applicant had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in this Court pending hearing and disposal of the present revision and had also paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the wife to leave his property. Applicant had sold the property viz. residential flat in the city of Amravati. Though the consideration is not known but he has purchased two blocks, one for his mother and the other for respondent-wife. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the applicant-husband has made a show of having purchased separate accommodation for respondent-wife, but that accommodation is not worthy of living and unfit for residence. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. In his cross-examination, applicant-husband has admitted that he is a registered civil engineer and consultant. He admitted logo of his Company by name Mukta Associates Engineers, Town Planners and Designers. He has admitted photographs of hoardings where his name is written as Engineer and Builder of Royal Mukta Palace. He further admits that he has two agricultural fields and a residential house. Therefore, contention of the applicant-husband that his annual income is around Rs. 16,000/- cannot be accepted and it appears that the such income has been reflected in the IT Returns just to defeat the claim of respondent-wife. Applicant’s claim that he has not neglected to maintain the respondent also does not appear to be correct. When questioned, “Sunita is still ready to live with you ?”, applicant-husband replied, “But I do not have house. She will have to live on street. Further, even though it is alleged by the 3 applicant that respondent is earning by running coaching classes and by working as insurance agent, that allegation appears to be vague and without any foundation. Applicant has not adduced on record any sort of evidence showing that the respondent is self-employed. 6. It is thus found established on record that that the applicant has failed to maintain the respondent having sufficient means to maintain her; that respondent is unable to maintain herself and therefore, she is entitled to the maintenance allowance. Quantum of maintenance allowance as fixed by the Faamily Court is on due consideration of the income of the applicant-husband and status of the parties. No interference is called for in the impugned order. Revision application is accordingly dismissed. Amount deposited by the applicant during the pendency of revision is allowed to be withdrawn by respondent which shall be adjusted towards maintenance allowance payable to the respondent-wife. JUDGE joshi