1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.164/2009. Shri Pushkaraj @ Bablu Ravindra Pawar - PETITIONER VERSUS Sow. Rajashree w/o Pushkaraj Pawar - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.M.P.Bhaskar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.P.S.Pawar, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of parties, the revision is heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 2) The Award of maintenance of Rs.1200/- per month, in Petition No. E-403 by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, is tested by the husband in the present Criminal Revision Application. 3) The Counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the husband Pushkaraj is merely a 2 Peon working in Primary Health Centre and his take-home salary is Rs.562/- only, as is tried to be established by means of Pay-slip for the month of February 2009, and consequently the Award of maintenance at Rs.1200/- per month is excessive. The learned Judge, according to him, has not considered the fact that it was the wife, who is adamant in her behaviour in not joining the company of the husband and consequently there cannot be any fault on the part of the petitioner/husband to pay separate maintenance to the wife. 4) The matrimonial relations being subsisting having got married on 19.2.2006 at Aurangabad in customary ways/rites and performance of marriage is not in dispute. It is unfortunate that the allegations are hurled that the husband behaved properly only for twenty days of the marriage and thereafter harassment started to the wife on the ground of bringing gold ornaments and for purchasing a new motor-cycle. There were criminal prosecution in terms of Section 498A, 323, 504, 406 r/w 34 of IPC at Deopur Police Station, Dhule and in the said proceedings also, the husband faced the brunt and by order dated 8th May, 2008, the husband and other relations are acquitted of the charge. 3 5) The bickering between the relations has resulted in making allegations against each other. It is an admitted position that the wife, if unable to maintain herself, is required to seek allowance from her husband to live in the standard in which her husband is residing. The salary-slip, to which learned Counsel gave reference, illustrates that the gross income of the petitioner/husband is Rs.7276/- per month. He has been making remittances of Rs.5,000/- to the Credit Cooperative Society; G.P.F. deduction at Rs. 200/-; payment to LIC Rs.1024/- and ultimately he allowed the deductions Rs.6714/-, making a meager take-home salary of Rs.562/-. The petitioner prima facie deliberately raised the liability of LIC and Credit Cooperative Society and thereby facilitating regular monthly remittances to make a show that his take-home salary is very meager and he has become insolvent to maintain the wife. This is simply an eye-wash and cannot be accepted as gross salary of Rs. 7276/- will have its ultimate impact while considering the expected allowance by the wife. 6) Taking these aspects into consideration and there being no evidence of any other dependency of the husband, I find that the order of the learned Judge of the Family Court in awarding maintenance of Rs.1200/-, cannot be said 4 to be unjustified or at higher pedestal. The separation by the wife is not by her sweet choice and by any adamancy on her part as the matrimonial tie could not be properly continued after twenty days of the marriage. It is for the parties to patch up their differences and get rid of such discord. In the situation, Revision is dismissed, Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv164.09