1 CR.REVN.APLN. 426/2009 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 426 OF 2009 Vaishnovi Nitin Kokate ...Petitioner Vs. Nitin Vishnu Kokate ...Respondent Mr. Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. U.B. Nighot, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The wife has challenged the order of the Family Court No.1, Pune granting maintenance of Rs.1500/- to her and Rs.500/- to her child. The husband also challenged the same order in Criminal Revision Application No.406/2009. In that application the impugned order has been considered. It is held to be reasonable taking into account the facts and circumstances and the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is observed to be reasonably and not arbitrarily determined so as to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction. That was in the challenge by the husband. That 2 CR.REVN.APLN. 426/2009 challenge required the Court to grant a lessor amount as maintenance. No interference in that behalf was made. The challenge by the wife is completely different. It requires the Court to grant a higher amount as maintenance upon showing the same order. It has to be seen whether the impugned order requires interference to modify the amount so as to grant reasonable maintenance to the wife and child of the Petitioner. 3. The learned Judge has considered inter alia the aspect of desertion, if any, by the wife. The Petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband has been ex-parte decreed. It is challenged by the wife. The challenge has been negatived by the Family Court. An Appeal from that order is pending before the District Court. That aspect would determine the neglect of the husband or his right to claim conjugal rights in the application. 4. Pending that determination under Section 125 of Cr.P.C only the income of the husband would require to be considered. 5. That income would be salary income as also agricultural income. 7X12 extracts of the property of the husband are considered by the Court. The fact that the husband has sold his individual landed property to his own sister for an admitted consideration of Rs.4,96,000/- is seen. That transfer may not reflect market value as it is made to a near relative after the 3 CR.REVN.APLN. 426/2009 wife’s alleged desertion and when the dispute between the parties were present. 6. The learned Judge has arrived at the monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- of the husband based upon his salary earning as well as agricultural income and the income from the price of land sold, which could be invested. The amount so computed is reasonably computed and has been already determined by this Court once. 7. In this application of the wife for seeking an enhanced amount upon challenge of the same order the only aspect to be seen is whether upon the income of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- of the husband which has been considered by this Court the maintenance to the wife as well as child of Rs.2000/- p.m., which would be 10% of the husband’s income, deserves interference. Wife and child together are not expected to be maintained out of 10% of the husband’s income. The reasonable amount of maintenance, though may not be precisely half the amount in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., must be more than 10% of the husband’s total income. The amount of maintenance granted to the wife as well as the child, therefore, deserves to be at least doubled. Interference to that extent is required. Modification to that extent must be made. 4 CR.REVN.APLN. 426/2009 8. Rule is, therefore, granted to that extent. 9. The husband shall pay maintenance of Rs.2000/- p.m to the wife and Rs.1000/- p.m to the child from today. 10.Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)