1 REVN68.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 68 OF 2016
APPLICANT : Mr. Kamlesh S/o Satyanarayan Sharma,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation : Priest,
R/o Rukhmini Niwas, Plot No.52-B,
Dangawali Nagar, Pipla Road,
Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] Sau. Dimple @ Meenakshi W/o Kamlesh
Sharma, Aged about 26 years,
Occupation : Household.
2] Master Mayank Kamlesh Sharma,
Aged about 12 months, Occupation : Nil,
Minor through guardian mother
i.e. applicant no.1.
Both r/o Hariharpeth, behind 19 Number
School, Mahakali Nagar, Akola,
Taq. and Dist. Akola.
———————————————————————————————-
Mr. R. R. Vyas, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. J. B. Gandhi, Advocate for the non-applicants.
———————————————————————————————-
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 10, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::
2 REVN68.16.odt
2. The present revision application is filed by the husband
to whom the learned Judge of the Family Court, Akola on 31.3.2016
in Petition No. E-157/2013, directed that he should pay Rs.10,000/-
per month to the non-applicant no.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month
to the non-applicant no.2/minor son from the date of filing of the
petition i.e. 19.12.2013.
3. Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel for the applicant/husband
has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the learned
Judge of the Family Court, Akola.
4. The marriage between the applicant and non-applicant
no.1 was performed at Akola on 08.3.2011. After the marriage,
non-applicant no.1 started residing with the applicant at Nagpur.
5. The non-applicants were required to file a petition under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Akola for grant of
maintenance since according to the non-applicant no.1, after
marriage, the applicant and his family members started causing
mental as well as physical harassment to her and she was driven out
of the house. According to the non-applicant no.1, the applicant is a
::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::
3 REVN68.16.odt
Priest and is managing Radha Krishna temple and Shani temple at
Nagpur. It is also stated in the application that the applicant and his
father has obtained a license from the Government of Maharashtra
under the name of “Radhakrishna Mandir and Jotish Karyalaya,
Vivaha Mandal, Manav Kalyan Bahu-uddeshiya Seva Sansthan,
having registration No. 1/99, Sanstha No.913 and they are
performing the marriages and the earning of the applicant is about
Rs.50,000/- per month.
6. The application was contested by the applicant/
husband. The applicant and non-applicant no.1 entered into the
witness box. The non-applicant no.1 also examined Smt. Dube, the
neighbour. No other witness was examined by the applicant/
husband. After appreciation of the evidence as brought on record,
the learned Judge of the Family Court, in my view, correctly
recorded the finding of fact that the applicant has neglected the non-
applicants and refused to maintain them in spite of having sufficient
means to do so. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and after
hearing the parties to the present revision, it is clear that the non-
applicants are unable to maintain themselves and are absolutely
::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::
4 REVN68.16.odt
dependent on the applicant.
7. That leaves the Court to decide the quantum of
maintenance. According to the applicant, he earns Rs.3,500/- per
month as salary by working as a priest, however, during the course
of his cross-examination, he has admitted that in the Sansthan he
and his father is having interest. Further, the Memorandum of
Association of said Sansthan is filed on record and it is at Exh.60.
The said Memorandum as well the Rules and Bye-laws (Exh.61)
shows that the present applicant is the Chairman of the said
Sansthan. It is also not in dispute that the applicant conducts a
lucrative pooja in Shani temple, which is called as ‘Payari Pooja’ and
collects hefty donations from the persons, who are performing said
pooja. Exh.62 is the account of the Sansthan, which shows that the
Sansthan has earning more than Rs.1,49,000/-. Further it is an
admitted position and the applicant recites that a luxurious car,
worth more than Rs.9 lakhs is purchased in the name of his father.
8. Thus, it is crystal clear that the applicant is having
sufficient means to pay maintenance to the non-applicants.
::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::
5 REVN68.16.odt
9. According to the Judge of the Family Court, the
applicant must be earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. In my
view, in absence of any specific material in that behalf, the income of
the applicant ought not to have been decided on the said guess-work.
Therefore, it is clear that the quantum of maintenance granted in
favour of the non-applicant no.1 is on higher side. Consequently, I
reduce the quantum of maintenance granted to the non-applicant
no.1 from Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month, however,
maintain the maintenance granted in favour of the minor son. Thus,
in total, the applicant will be required to pay Rs.10,000/- per month
from the date of the order i.e. 31.3.2016, since there are no specific
reasons given by the learned Judge of the Family Court as to why the
maintenance has to be granted from the date of application/petition.
10. With this, the revision application is partly allowed with
no order as to costs. The Court is not interfering with the amount of
costs that is granted by the trial Court.
JUDGE
Diwale
::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::
