1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 6 OF 2010 Atmaram s/o Meharam Chawhan v. Sau. Sushma Atmaram Chawhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.Y. Kumbhare Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.Vijaya P. Thakare Advocate for the N.A. . ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 31st MARCH,_2010. Not on board. Taken on board for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for recalling of the judgment dated 6.11.2009 rendered by this Court in Cri. Writ Petition No. 289 of 2007, which is nothing but a review of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant relying on the judgment of this Court in Kalpana d/o Nilaram Harinkhede v. State of Maharashtra – 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 483 argued that review is permissible when the petition was decided under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution 2 of India and in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, jurisdiction of review can be exercised. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant while arguing on merits of the case submitted that the applicant-husband is a retired Engineer from M.S.E.B and is unable to provide maintenance to respondent/wife. According to him, she did not claim maintenance for 20 long years and suddenly filed this application for grant of maintenance. The application thus suffers from delay and laches, and the courts could not have ignored the same and ought to have dismissed the application on the said ground. According to him, the respondent/wife is able to maintain herself as she is working as Anganwadi Sevika and getting honorarium of Rs.2000/- per month. Apart from this, she has also share in the ancestral agricultural land up to 20 acres of land. He also relied on the decision in G. Mariah v. G. Vijayalaksmi – 1979 Cri.L.J. 1226 and argued that the courts below ought to have considered these facts. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife opposed the review application and argued that the courts below have concurrently found entitlement of the wife for maintenance from her husband. She therefore supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no perversity nor any material to review the judgment in question. 6. I have gone through the judgment under review so also the judgments recorded by the courts below allowing maintenance to the respondent/wife at 3 the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. The courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the applicant has kept one Meerabai as his mistress and even has two children from her. In my opinion, this by itself amounted to refusal and neglect so also cruelty. Therefore, no premium could be put on the review petitioner in accepting his statement that for the last 20 years the wife did not claim maintenance. As a matter of fact, looking to the background that the respondent/wife resides with her father in a village and has thus been living on the mercy of her parents did not saddle any liability on the applicant for grant of maintenance, the applicant should thank the respondent/wife as he has saved his money for the last 20 years. Now, she is claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and in view of the refusal and neglect by the husband, he is under obligation to provide maintenance to her. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this application nor do I find any miscarriage of justice to review the impugned judgment and order made by this Court. 7. Insofar as the submission regarding income of the wife alleged by the petitioner or share in her father's property is concerned, I find that this point was not proved by the applicant by appropriate evidence in the courts below and therefore the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the said contention is not correct and was not established by the review applicant/ husband. The courts below therefore found that the wife was not able to maintain herself, and looking to the 4 status of respondent/wife granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Awarding of maintenance cannot be said to be on higher side, particularly in the light of the fact that the applicant was never saddled with maintenance. The applicant was working with M.S.E.B., which is a government company and looking to the salary he earned from the employment, I do not think that quantum of maintenance should be reduced. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present application and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE /TA/ 5