Kps 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.132/2009 Salim Ismail Mehesaniya......Petitioner V/s Mrs.Firoza Salim Mahesaniya and another........Respondents ............. Mr.Santosh Narwade i/b M/s M.P.Vashi & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr.S.C.Thatte, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the State. ............. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. Dated :- 06th May, 2009 PC :- 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent. 2 The Petitioner/husband has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court by which the Petitioner/husband has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the first Respondent/wife and monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the daughter. 3 The first submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that on 25.05.2006 the Petitioner has given “Talaaq” to the first Respondent. The second submission is that the income of the Petitioner is only to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month and the first Respondent/wife has not adduced any evidence to show that income of the Petitioner is more than Rs.5,000/- per month. The third submission is that the Petitioner is a handicapped person and therefore, he is unable to earn substantial income. The fourth submission is that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 an amount exceeding the amount of Rs.1500/- could not have been granted. 4 Insofar as the first submission is concerned, it is an admitted position that in Kps 2 reply filed by the Petitioner to the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has not pleaded about any “Talaaq”. It is pertinent to note that the petition under Section 125 was filed on 08.09.2006. The very fact that such an important aspect is not mentioned in the reply filed by the Petitioner shows that the said contention is nothing but an afterthought. In any case the said contention has been raised for the first time in this revision application. The first Respondent has filed reply denying the said allegation. 5 Insofar as the second submission is concerned, the Petitioner stepped into the witness box and it was for the Petitioner to produce his income tax returns which could have disclosed his income. But, he has not done so. The learned Judge of Family Court has noted that at present the Petitioner is residing in a Flat at Malad along with his second wife. The learned Judge has noted that in cross-examination, the Petitioner admitted that he was carrying on business of Hotel Shabnam in partnership and the said hotel has been sold recently. The Petitioner also admitted that a Flat at Versova in Mumbai has been sold recently. It was sought to be contended that the Petitioner has not received his share in the said sale transactions. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner did not produce the documents regarding sale of the hotel and flat at Versova. The Petitioner also admitted that he was getting income of Rs.5,000/- per month from a buffalo shed. Thus, even according to the case of the Petitioner, he is earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- from a buffalo shed. The Petitioner admitted that he was running a hotel by name Hotel Shabnam and was holding a flat at Versova in Mumbai. If the Petitioner has come out with the case that the said properties were sold by him, he should have produced the documents relating to the sale of the said properties so that income received from the sale of the properties could have been brought on record. But, the Petitioner has chosen to suppress those documents. Apart from admitted income of Rs.5,000/- per month, the Petitioner was admittedly running a hotel business in partnership. The Petitioner should have disclosed before the Court the extent of income which he was receiving from the partnership business. However, the Petitioner has not disclosed the same. Therefore, it is very difficult to find fault with the finding recorded by the Family Court that the Petitioner is having sufficient income notwithstanding the fact that he is handicapped. The evidence on record shows that Kps 3 even going by the case of the Petitioner, in recent past, he was holding two flats in the city of Mumbai and was carrying on the business in partnership of running hotel in Mumbai. If these facts are considered, the total monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Family Court cannot be faulted with. Hence, the second and third contentions have no merit. As stated earlier, the contention that there is “Talaaq” is an afterthought. The last contention has no merit in as much as the upper limit of Rs.1500/- has been removed from Section 125 by Section 50 of the Act 50 of 2001. 6 The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are of the summary proceedings. Considering the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court, no case for interference is made out. The petition is rejected. JUDGE