Bombay High Court
Hemant Shyamnarayan Mishra vs Sau. Neeta Hemant Mishra on 24 September, 2018
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
1/4
Yadav 36.Revn.29.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2016
Hemant Shyamnarayan Mishra ... Applicant
Versus
Sau. Neeta Hemant Mishra ... Respondent
Mr. U. P. Dable for Applicant.
None present for the Respondent.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2018. P.C. : . The Respondent - wife filed Petition No. E-80 of 2013 based
on the marriage solemnized on 18th April 2012 at Amravati, and the matrimonial discord.
2. In the said proceedings maintenance is claimed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on the theory of neglect to maintain.
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 01:22:08 ::: 2/4
Yadav 36.Revn.29.2016
3. In support of the claim made in an Application for maintenance, the Respondent - wife filed Affidavit in-evidence at Exhibit - 18 and also adduced oral evidence. The Applicant - husband entered into witness-box after having submitted examination-in-chief at Exhibit - 28, so as to resist the claim.
4. The learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 20th November 2015 awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to Respondent. As such, this Revision.
5. Heard Mr. Dable, the learned Counsel for Applicant at length. The relationship between the Applicant and Respondent is not in dispute. What is disputed is the source of income and the quantum of allowance of maintenance.
6. In the cross-examination of present Applicant - husband, he has admitted that he is assisting his father in the family business of managing the Lodge, Marriage Lawn and Boring Works Agency. It is also admitted by him that he is residing with his parents along with his sister ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 01:22:08 ::: 3/4 Yadav 36.Revn.29.2016 Jaya. In the aforesaid background, the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondent - wife.
7. Mr. Dable, the learned Counsel for Applicant would urge that Applicant was ready and willing to reside with the Respondent - wife, however, it is the Respondent, who was not willing to stay with the Applicant. So far as finding of fact recorded by the Family Court on the issue of re-union of the Applicant and the Respondent is concerned, the earlier attempts by this Court and also the Family Court were found to be not fruitful. The claim of the Respondent regarding neglect to maintain is proved by adducing oral evidence and also documentary evidence.
8. Considering the nature of business, the Family Court reached to a conclusion that the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- will be reasonable amount.
9. The Respondent - wife has demanded maintenance of Rs.25,000/-. Admissions given by the present Applicant in his evidence about the various business into which he is, the Apex Court has also permitted some guess work in arriving at the income of the spouse, has ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 01:22:08 ::: 4/4 Yadav 36.Revn.29.2016 rightly prompted the Court to pass an order of award of maintenance of Rs.20,000/-.
10. Nothing is brought on record either before the court below or before this Court to demonstrate that the allowance of maintenance awarded is disproportionate to the monthly income of the present Applicant - husband. As such the Court below was right in inferring that the reasonable maintenance to which the Respondent - wife will be entitled was Rs.20,000/-. No default can be noticed in the order impugned which warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
11. The Criminal Revision fails. Hence dismissed.
12. It is made clear that the amount of maintenance which was deposited in this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the Respondent - wife.
(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 01:22:08 :::