1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.496 of 2009 IN Criminal Revision Application No.50 of 2007 Mr.Avinash Balkrishna Khandve .. .. Applicant (Orig. Respondent) v/s. Sou. Pradnya Avinash Khandve & anr. .. Respondents Mr.Pravartak Pathak i/by Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for Applicant. Mr.P.M. Chitale for Respondent No.1. Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for State. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 30th November 2009 P.C. : 1.The Applicant-husband has applied for modification of the order of interim maintenance passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13.8.2007 for payment of interim maintenance to the 1st Respondent, who is the second wife of the Applicant. 2.The Applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.50 of 2007 challenged the order of refusal to grant maintenance passed by the Family Court, Pune. 2 3.In her Application, the Division Bench allowed maintenance of Rs.1,000/- commencing from August 2007 to be paid until further orders. The Criminal Revision Application is pending. The Applicant-husband in this Application deposited the interim maintenance amount for 10 months from August 2007. Thereafter the maintenance amount has not been paid on several grounds. 4.The first ground is that his services are terminated. This is shown by way of retrenchment. He has relied upon a copy of the letter dated 2.4.2008, shown to have been signed by one Mr.A.V. Supekar, Area Sales Manager of Swifts Pvt. Ltd. A copy of the letter simpliciter produced does not show the truth of the contents. An affidavit of the author of the letter is not filed. The simipliciter case that his services are terminated cannot be accepted upon mere production of the copy of the letter. The affidavit of the Applicant shows that this order of termination is passed on account of recession in the business. It further shows that now he is working as a Technician to various customers of the said Company. This statement of the Applicant in paragraph 4 of his affidavit shows that the Applicant does have some means of livelihood through the said Company. He has not shown what is the amount he earns each month. His statement that he is getting about Rs. 3 2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month is also completely unsubstantiated and cannot be accepted. 5.The next reason is that the Applicant has to maintain his other family members, including his first wife (the 1st Respondent herein is his second wife). This is a legal liability which has to be discharged, if the Applicant chooses to contract marriages twice. 6.The second wife of the Applicant, the 1st Respondent herein, has, by way of an Affidavit-in-reply to this Application, shown a home loan taken by the Applicant of Rs.2,60,000/- from ICICI Bank. That has to be repaid by him by EMIs of Rs.2843/-. Hence the Applicant s earning capacity must be taken to be far more than EMIs payable. Further, it is shown that the first wife of the Applicant was granted a decree of divorce by the Family Court, Pune on 31.3.2004. In Appeal from that decree, Consent Terms came to be filed under which a sum of Rs.2,000/- was agreed to be paid by the Applicant herein to his first wife. The Advocate for Respondent No.1 makes a statement that those amounts have also not been paid. 7.The Applicant also claims that in December 2008, he met with an accident and his left hand was fractured. Hence he was unable to earn. He has produced copies of 4 medical record. The medical record does not show any complete or permanent disability. Mere fracturing of the hand cannot absolve a husband from maintaining his wife. 8.Each of these reasons is unacceptable. Hence the Application for modification of the amount already granted cannot be granted and the Application for modification is dismissed. 9.It is clarified that the amount of Rs.1,000/- ordered to be paid is only the interim maintenance amount, pending Criminal Revision Application No.50 of 2007. 10.The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)