1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.577 OF 2008 Jaspreet Singh Applicant versus Mrs.Manmeet Jaspreet Singh & another Respondents Ms.Mallika Ingale for applicant. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for State. H.S.anand i/by Ms.Savita Donde for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 012th June 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The challenge by this revision application is to an order of the learned Judge of the Family Court granting maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the second respondent-wife @ Rs. 7,000/- p.m.. The finding of the learned Judge of the Family Court is that initially the applicant-husband was working as a Manager in a reputed company drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month plus perquisites. The case made out by the applicant is that though he was holding the said job, he lost the job because of the police 2 complaint made by the wife and the visits by the wife to his place of employment. The learned Judge has considered the case made out by the applicant that after allegedly loosing the said job he admittedly got another job where he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month plus perquisites, housing rent allowance and other allowances. A perusal of the impugned judgement shows that the figure of Rs.7,000/- has been arrived at after considering the income of the applicant @ Rs. 15,000/- plus perquisites per month. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the second respondent-wife was gainfully employed as a teacher in a school and all that she has produced before the Court is a letter issued by the school management to the effect that her services will be terminated after one month. She submitted that there is no letter produced by the first respondent on record to show that her services were actually terminated. She submitted that the applicant was not given an opportunity to adduce proper evidence. She stated that the second respondent-wife has made very serious allegations against the father of the applicant and, therefore, the stand taken by her in the Family Court that she is ready to co-habit with the applicant could not have been accepted. She has placed reliance on several documents to show that the applicant was keeping the second respondent comfortable and the applicant had paid certain amounts towards 3 grossery purchased by the mother of the second respondent-wife. She submitted that in the circumstances, the learned Judge of the family Court could not have recorded a finding that the applicant has refused and neglected to maintain second respondent. She submitted that the second respondent did not stay with the applicant even for a year after the marriage. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The proceedings under section 125 of the said Code of 1973 are of summary nature. There is no dispute that the second respondent and the applicant are not staying together. After considering the evidence on record a finding has been recorded by the Judge of the Family Court that the applicant is not maintaining the second respondent. 4. As far as employment of the second respondent is concerned, the letter produced by the second respondent dated 3rd October 2007 records that the management had decided to terminate the services of the second respondent from 2nd November 2007 onwards. Thus, what was given to the respondent-wife was one month’s notice of termination. It is not expected of any employer to give further notice to the employee recording that the termination has actually taken effect. If the contention of the applicant was that notwithstanding the notice of termination the second respondent continued in 4 employment, it was for the applicant to apply to the Family Court to issue summons to the management of the school. Admittedly, that has not been done. Therefore, there was every justification for the finding recorded by the Family Court that the second respondent-wife was no more in the employment from 2nd November 2007. 5. It is an admitted position that the applicant was earlier employed and was drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month plus perquisites. The case of the applicant is that he lost the said job due to the conduct of the second respondent. As far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, this fact becomes irrelevant as in paragraph 39 of the judgement the learned Judge of the Family Court has recorded that even according to the case of the applicant he has secured another job where he is getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- plus perquisites and housing rent allowance. The maintenance is fixed only at Rs.7,000/- p.m.. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on decision of this Court in case of Dattatraya Champatgir Giri Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another (1993-Cri.L.J.-2181). Considering the facts of this case, the said decision will have no application. This Court held in the said decision on facts that the wife was not entitled to maintenance. 5 7. No reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision application is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)