-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2008 Mr Dilshad Shabbir Shaikh, .. Petitioner Vs Mrs Anisa Dilshad Shaikh and ors .. Respondents. Mr Vivek Pandey, for the petitioner. Mr Sanjay Oommen, for respondent no.1. Mrs M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the respondent no.2-State. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATE : 01/08/2008 DATE : 01/08/2008 DATE : 01/08/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. This is a Criminal Revision Application arising from an order passed by the Family Court on 11.2.2008 thereunder directing the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the wife with effect from 12.12.2005. This revision petition was before the Division Bench for settlement so as to enable the parties to settle the matrimonial dispute, as is cleared from the orders passed on 5.5.08, 9.6.08, 23.6.08, and 27.6.08. When the petition came up before us on 18.7.08 both these spouses stated that the marriage had reached at primitive stage and they have sought time to settle. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated before us that the final offer of the petitioner-husband for settlement is of Rs.Five lacs by way of permanent alimony and this offer has been rejected -2- by the learned counsel for the wife, who is present in the court. 2. Both the spouses profess Islam and the petitioner husband and the respondent-wife are citizens of India. Their marriage was registered at Bandra, Mumbai on 29.1.2002 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and it was a love marriage. The wife filed a complaint under section 498-A and 406 read with section 34 of the IPC against the petitioner-husband and his uncle Mr.Moiz Hammed with Bandra Police Station on 24.6.2004 and, on 22.7.2005 the wife approached the Metropolitan Magistrate to seize the petitioner’s passport. The Metropolitan Magistrate had put certain terms and conditions and finally on 5.10.2005 the husband was directed to deposit the passport with the Senior Police Inspector of Bandra Police Station. On 12/12/2005, the respondent filed M.J.Petition No.E-03/2006 for maintenance and the same came to be allowed by the impugned order. The wife had claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month by way of maintenance and had submitted that the husband comes from a financially rich family, the petitioner’s father is a renowned Singer and also has a music group/orchastra performing music shows all over the world. She, therefore, claimed that the monthly income of the husband could be around Rs.Two lacs per month. The husband in his -3- reply had denied that he earned Rs.Two lacs per month and he pointed out that he is simply assisting his father in the stage shows and his father spends for his tickets. He is only a part of the music orchestra show and he does not have his own income. He had also alleged that the wife was doing some business and she was not totally dependent upon his earning. The wife had placed some documents before the Family Court pointing out that the husband travels all over the world for performances and he lives a luxurious life. Her Income-tax Returns are placed on record at Exhibit-19. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the arguments of both the parties as well as the documents on record and observed in paragraph 6 as under : "On the point of quantum of maintenance is concerned, the wife contended that husband is performing stage show. She has produced various newspaper, advertisement in which it is seen that he is conducting music shows at various places in Gulf Countries as well as other countries. In the photograph his father promoting his son and daughter are also seen. This clearly proves that the son is also earning independently". -4- The Family Court further noted that the husband has his own car and the husband stated before the Family Court that he goes to Pakistan for hair cutting or weaving. The learned counsel for the wife has placed before us copies of the passport of the husband and we have noted that from the year 2003 he has made atleast four visits every year to the foreign countries, such as London, U.S.A., Pakistan, Canada and Soudi Arabia. In Criminal Revision Application No.1354 of 2005 before the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, the husband had stated : "The father of the applicant is well known singer in the film industry. The applicant is a musician in the industry. Both of them are regularly performing their programmes all over the world and hence they are often required to go out of India for music programme. In this background the husband and the family members were obtained passports and visa from respective countries. On the strength of the above referred documents the applicant had visited to various countries and he is also required to visit to different countries in future for performing musical and cultural programmes". 4. Based on these pleadings, the learned Judge of the Family Court held that the husband could be earning Rs. one lac per month and, therefore, fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.35,000/- per month, i.e. 1/3rd of the income -5- of the husband. We do not find the approximation made by the Family Court either to be perverse or grossly erroneous so as to interfere in the impugned order under our reversionary powers. Hence, this Revision Application must fail at the threshold. It has also been pointed out that despite the orders passed by this court, the arrears of maintenance were deposited late and as of now from the total amount of Rs.10,85,000/- he has only deposited an amount of Rs.Three lacs with the Family Court and thus he is in arrears of almost about Rs.7,85,000/-. 5. The Marriage Certificate issued by Kazi in its original form was placed before us by the wife and we have noted that the Mehar amount in words as well as in letters, as written in the said certificate, is Rs.50 lacs (Rupees fifty lacs) and, therefore, we do not find any unreasonable attitude on the part of the wife in rejecting the offer of Rs.Five lacs by way of permanent alimony for divorce. 6. Hence, this Revision Application is rejected summarily. -6- (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)