1.0 As common question of law and facts arise in both these Criminal Revision Applications and as such both these Revision Applications are cross Revision Applications challenging the very common judgment and order, both these revision applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common order.
2.0 Criminal Revision Application no. 138 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal opponenthusband to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad dated 15.12.2008 in Miscellaneous Application No.46 of 2002, by which, learned Judge has directed the petitioner hereinoriginal opponent husband to pay Rs.3000/ per month to the respondent no.1 herein original applicant wife towards her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of application i.e. 4.1.2002.
3.0 Criminal Revision Application no. 401 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal applicantwife to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad dated 15.12.2008 in Miscellaneous Application No.46 of 2002 so far as not awarding Rs.5000/ per month towards her maintenance as demanded and instead awarding Rs.3000/ per month only. Thus, the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.401 of 2009 has been preferred by the to enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs. 3000/ to Rs.5000/.
4.0 That the petitioner of Criminal Revision Application No.401 of 2009 original applicantwife submitted the application before the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad for getting the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That the original applicantwife claimed Rs.5000/ towards her maintenance submitting that she has been deserted by the husband without reasonable cause. It was also submitted that the husband has agriculture lands and earning Rs.12000/ per month from the same. It was also submitted that the husband is also earning Rs.3500/ per month from doing some other work. Therefore, it was requested to award Rs.5000/ per month towards maintenance.
4.1. That the said application was opposed by the husband original opponent and it was denied that his income is Rs.15000/ per month as alleged. He also deny the allegations of harassment to the wife.
4.2. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Family Court considered the income of the husband at Rs.10,000/ per month and considering the other liability of the husband towards his parent, the learned Family Court by impugned order has awarded Rs.3000/ per month to the original applicant wife towards her maintenance.
4.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court awarding Rs.3000/ per month to the original applicant wife towards her maintenance, both the applicant wife as well as original opponenthusband have preferred the present Criminal Revision Applications.
5.0 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the husband has income from the agriculture income only and there is no evidence on record that he was serving. On appreciation of evidence the learned Family Court has considered the income of the husband at Rs.10,000/ per month, which in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be perverse and / or contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge in considering the income of the husband at Rs.10,000/ per month while awarding maintenance to the original applicant wife. Considering the aforesaid income of the husband at Rs.10,000/ per month and as it has been found that the husband has also responsibility and / or liability to maintain his parent, it cannot be said that in the facts and circumstances the learned Family Court has committed any error and / or illegality in awarding Rs.3000/ per month to the original applicantwife towards her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Awarding Rs.3000/ per month is neither too excessive nor on a lower side which in the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be interfered.
6.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the revision applications fail and same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged in each of the revision applications.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )