1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO 246 of 2009 (Maroti s/o Muttappa Gollar vs. Sau. Vijaya w/o Maroti Gollar) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders M/s. V.R.Jain, Adv., h/f Rajshree N.Reddy, Adv., for the applicant. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 15/9/2009 P.C.:- 1. The order of maintenance allowance by learned Judge of Family Court in Petition E-112/2005 dt. 24.7.2008 in favour of the wife and two children is questioned by the husband. 2. Counsel submits, the wife is a medical practitioner and she can independently maintain herself. The husband is drawing salary of Rs. 7313/- and even if 50 per cent of the same is deducted, it should not be Rs.5500/- per month for the wife and the two children. The Counsel submits that applicant husband has 2 to maintain his old parents and the order under challenge suffers from illegality. 3. The respondent wife, inspite of service, absent. 4. The contention that the wife is a medical practitioner ( D.H.M.S.), is not in dispute but the fact remains she has discontinued such practice and virtually left with no income. Same is contended by her in paragraph no.20 of her deposition and discussed by the learned Judge at paragraph no.12 of the order. I do not see that there is any error in such appreciation. 5. Then comes income of the husband. The salary certificate at page no.36 indeed shows the gross salary of the husband as on March, 2009, to be Rs.15,448/- and there are deductions since Bank loan of Rs.4500/- is raised, LIC deductions of Rs.1490/- are made and ultimately, the husband receives Rs. 7313/-. It was naturally the sweet 3 will of the husband to make savings and even to raise loans but that does not mean that he has meager salary. His take home salary is deliberately reduced by creating obstacles of loans, naturally to sabotage claim of the wife and children. It is in the evidence of the wife that the husband has rental income of Rs.1500/-. He possesses 10 acres of irrigated land from which also there is substantial income. This is so stated by the learned Judge in paragraph no.26 of the judgment. This needs consideration. 6. The two children, at the relevant time, were Xth and VIth Standard. Now they must have been XIth and VIIth Standard or even ahead of the same as the order is dt.24.7.2008. The living standard and educational expenses to the two children need to be in consonance with the prevailing expenses they are expected, including fees of the respective institutions. The wife is supposed to live in a standard akin to that of the husband and 4 naturally award of Rs.1500/- to the wife cannot be said to be excessive. 7. Counsel placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Tejram s/o Mahadeorao Gaikwad Vs. Smt. Sunanda w/o Tejram Gaikwad and others ( 1996 CRI.L.J. 172) wherein it was observed that the husband was drawing a salary of Rs.2,000/- from M.S.E.B. and, consequently, there was award to the wife at the rate of Rs.400/- per month and to the minor son at the rate of Rs.200/- per month and it was observed that such award cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 8. Taking survey of the evidence in this case, I find the award of maintenance to the wife and children is reasonable. No merit in the revision. It is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/246-09crra