1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2006 Zibal s/o. Laluji Gharde, Aged about 60 yrs., Occ. Service, r/o. Nagsen Nagar, Kamptee, P.O.Kamptee, Tahsil Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. ........ APPLICANT // VERSUS // Smt. Devika w/o. Zibal Gharde, Aged about 55 yrs., Occ. Household, c/o. Shri Hiramanji Narnaware, r/o. Dhabha, Post Varathi, Tahsil Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara. ......... RESPONDENT -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. B. B. Raipure, Adv. for Applicant. Mr. I. S. Charlewar, Adv. for Respondent. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D. D. Sinha, J. DATE : 01.09.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. B. B. Raipure, Adv. for Applicant and Mr. I. S. Charlewar, Adv. for Respondent. 2. Present Criminal Application is filed by the applicant u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order passed by the lower Revisional Court whereby the order of Original Court dt. 13.7.2005 is set aside and the respondent therein/husband (present applicant) is directed to pay maintenance to his wife (present respondent) of Rs.1,500/- p.m. from the date of application i.e. 5.7.2004. The applicant was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to present respondent towards costs of the proceedings. 3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that, the respondent, without any justification or cause, deserted the applicant and started living separately since long time. It is contended that, the applicant is ready and willing to maintain his wife if she comes and resides with him; however, all his efforts failed and the wife started residing separately and deserted the applicant without any justification and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance, particularly, when the applicant is ready and willing to maintain her provided she comes and stays with him. It is 3 further contended that the applicant has never misbehaved with the respondent and if she comes and stay with him in future, he shall take care and maintain her properly. It is further submitted that the reasoning given by the lower Revisional Court is without any evidence and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 4. Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondent/wife stayed with the applicant in spite of harassment and ill-treatment given by him for sixteen years. It is contended that the applicant used to abuse her physically and mentally and used to ill-treat her and therefore, she had no option but to stay separately from the applicant. It is contended that the respondent is 54 years of age and has no occupation; she is totally dependent on the applicant, who, at the relevant time, was working as an Accountant and drawing about Rs. 13,000/-. It is contended that though the respondent was entitled for the amount more than Rs.1,500/- p.m. considering the earnings of the applicant, the lower Revisional Court has granted only Rs.1,500/-, which is barely sufficient for the lady to maintain herself. 5. I have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the order passed by the lower Revisional Court. In para no.9 of the order of the lower Revisional Court, sufficient reasons 4 are given by the Court as to why the order passed by the Original Court dt. 13.7.2005 is unsustainable in law and how the respondent/wife has made out a case for grant of maintenance. In the present case, the applicant and the respondent stayed together for a long time. The respondent/wife is 54 years old and admittedly, has no occupation and therefore, there is no source of earning so far as she is concerned. It is difficult to believe that the respondent would leave the company of the applicant, if he, as claimed, would have treated her well. It is nodoubt true that the allegations and counter-allegations are made by the applicant and the respondent against each other. However, the fact remains that the marriage is subsisting and looking to the circumstances brought on record, the Revisional Court was justified in holding that the respondent has made out a case for grant of maintenance, considering the monthly income of the applicant. 6. Therefore, no case is made out for showing indulgence. However, the counsel for the applicant and the respondent have submitted that they would try to settle the dispute amicably and shall try to convenience their respective clients in this regard. It is further submitted that, if the help of a mediator is required, then joint application to the proper Authorities shall be made accordingly. 5 7. I feel that both the lawyers shall use their good offices and convenience their respective clients to settle the dispute amicably and if any help of a conciliator or a mediator is necessary and if the application is made accordingly, same will be provided to both of them. However, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. JUDGE jaiswal