1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-husband to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08/06/2012 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Miscellaneous (Maintenance) Application No. 1460/2010 by which the learned family Court has directed the applicant- husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- only to respondent no. 2- original applicant-wife towards her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife submitted an application against the applicant-husband initially in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara claiming maintenance at Rs. 8,000/- per month, which came to be transferred to the learned family Court, Vadodara, which came to be numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous (Maintenance) Application No. 1460/2010. It was the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife that after the marriage span of six months, she was being harassed and given mental torture by the applicant-husband and her in-laws and, therefore, it was the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant that due to the physical and mental cruelty by the applicant-husband and his family members she was compelled to leave her husband's house and is compelled to stay with her parents. It was the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant that the applicant-husband is a brahmin/priest/pujari and by doing 'yajman vruti' he is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and by doing side business he is earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of commission. It was also the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant that the father of the applicant-husband was serving in IPCL, who has expired and his family has received about Rs. 30 lakhs from IPCL and presently the mother of the applicant is getting Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of family pension. It is submitted by respondent no. 2-original applicant that the applicant-husband is not having any liability to maintain anybody else except respondent no. 2-original applicant and, therefore, it was requested to award maintenance at Rs. 8000/- per month.
3. The present application was opposed by the applicant- husband denying the ill-treatment to respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife as well as denying his monthly income at Rs. 20,000/- per month as alleged. However, the applicant- husband did not produce any evidence/documentary evidence to prove his actual monthly income considering the income of the applicant-husband at Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month and considering the same, the learned family Court has awarded Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife towards her maintenance. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Vadodara dated
preferred the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that as such the learned Judge has materially erred in awarding Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife towards her maintenance. It is submitted that in absence of any other documentary evidence and/or evidence, the learned Judge has materially erred in considering the income of the applicant at Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month. It is submitted that as such the applicant-husband has not deserted respondent no. 2- original applicant-wife and she has voluntarily gone to her parental house. It is submitted that as such the applicant is a pujari/priest and is doing 'yajman vruti' and, therefore, his income cannot be believed at Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month. Making the above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Criminal Revision Application.
5. The present Criminal Revision Application is opposed by Shri Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife. It is submitted that as such the applicant-husband did not produce any evidence to show his actual income. Under the circumstances, considering the fact that the applicant is a pujari/priest and is doing 'yajman vruti' and is performing puja on various occasions, social as well as religious, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge considering the income of the applicant-husband at Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month and consequently has not committed any error and/or illegality in awarding Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife towards her maintenance. It is submitted that in these hard days, Rs. 3000/- per month cannot be said to be an exorbitant amount. Under the circumstances, it is requested to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Application with cost.
6. Heard Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-husband, Ms. C.M Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1-State and Shri Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2- original applicant-wife and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned family Court, Vadodara by which the learned Judge has directed the applicant-husband to pay Rs. 3000/- per month only to respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife towards her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the applicant-husband is a pujari/priest and is doing 'yajman vruti' performing religious ceremonies on different occasions, social as well as religious. It is also required to be noted that the father of the applicant-husband was serving in IPCL, who has retired and now expired and at the time of his retirement he got Rs. 30 lakhs and his mother is getting Rs. 5,000/- per month towards family pension. As such, the applicant-husband, who is supposed to be having the best evidence to show his income, has not produced any evidence to show his actual income. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the family status of the applicant-husband and that he is a family priest/pujari doing 'yajman vruti' and performing religious ceremonies on different occasions, social as well as religious, it cannot be said that the learned family Court has committed any error and/or illegality in considering the income of the applicant-husband atleast at Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month and consequently has not committed any error in awarding Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent no. 2-original applicant towards her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has specifically held that respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife was deserted and she is not able to maintain herself. Considering the price rise, inflation, value of rupee etc. and the minimum requirement for maintenance of respondent no. 2-wife, it cannot be said that awarding Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent no. 2-wife is too excessive and/or exorbitant, which calls for the interference of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the circumstances, no interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Criminal Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs. 3000/-, which the applicant shall deposit with the learned family Court within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife shall be permitted to withdraw the same. It is reported that the applicant-husband has not paid any amount towards maintenance. Under the circumstances, it is observed that as and when any application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of maintenance is filed the same shall be disposed of by the learned family Court at the earliest.
9. With this, the present Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji