AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Deshpande, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
The revision is taken up for final hearing at admission stage in view of the order passed by this Court on 12-03-2015.
By the present revision application, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No. 2, Nagpur dated 07-03-2013 below Exhibit-6 in Petition No.E 227 of 2012, whereby the application filed on behalf of the non-applicants was allowed and the applicant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant no.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant no.2 by way of interim maintenance together with final judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No. 4, Nagpur in Petition No.E-227 of 2012 dated 21-11-2014, whereby the applicant is directed by the learned Judge of the Family Court to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month to the petitioner no.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the petitioner no.2 towards their maintenance from the date of the judgment i.e. dated 21-11-2014 along with the litigation charges of Rs. 2000/-.
The marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant no.1 dated 25-12-2009 is not in dispute. The non-applicant no.2 Arohi is the daughter of the applicant and non-applicant no.1 is also not in dispute. The non-applicants were required to approach before the Family Court for claiming their due right of maintenance since the applicant failed to discharge his obligation to maintain his wife and the daughter.
As per the application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/husband is serving as Marine Engineer with Bahamas Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Latham House, 16 Minories, London (United Kingdom) and has posted at Dubai. It was disclosed at the time of marriage that the applicant has to do seaman''s duties as Marine Engineer for three months continuously and after that he get rest for a period of three months with pay and after completion of this period again he has to join his duties.
After the marriage, the non-applicant no.1 started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial house at Bhim Nagar, Nagpur. Their cohabitation continued till June 2010. During her stay a demand was made by the applicant to purchase a car, since she showed her inability, she was subjected to maltreatment.
In June 2010, the applicant joined his duties on ship, however, the non-applicant no.1 continued her residence with her matrimonial house. In September 2010, the applicant returned back from his duties at Nagpur. However, after his return, on the instigation from the mother of the applicant, the non-applicant was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the applicant.
The non-applicant was admitted in the hospital in the month of December 2010 for her delivery, where she delivered non-applicant no.2 a female child. Since she delivered a female child, the applicant and his family members refused to pay the hospital bills. Those were paid by the father of the non-applicant no.1.
On discharge from the hospital on 30-12-2010, neither the applicant nor his any family members were present, therefore, the non-applicant no.1 was required to reside along with her parents with the newly born child.
On 31-12-2010, the applicant with his cousin made a ruckus in the house of the non-applicant no.1"''s parents. Though the applicant failed to take the non-applicant no.1 with a newly born child, the non-applicant no.1 insisted her parents that she wished to be in her matrimonial house and therefore the father of the non-applicant along with some elderly person had been to the house of the applicant with request that he should come to take his wife and child. Ultimately, the applicant took his wife and child on 28-02-2011.
Her stay in the matrimonial house was comfortable only for eight days, thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty.
A quarrel was picked up by the applicant on 03-05-2011 on account of the demand, that time she was subjected to physical abuses, therefore, she was required to approach to the police authorities and on the basis of her report Crime No. 96 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant.
It is stated in the application for maintenance that since 03-05-2012 the applicant has neglected the non-applicants and they are leading their life at the mercy of the parents of the non-applicant no.1. It is also stated in the application that the salary of the applicant is Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is pointed out that nobody is dependent on him. Since his father is retired personnel from B.S.N.L. Department and he gets handsome pension. Further, it is pointed out, that the father of the applicant owns 10 acres of agricultural land.
The application was contested by the applicant and denied all allegations.
During the pendency of the application, the application for interim maintenance was moved. The said application is at Exhibit-6. The learned Judge of the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 1000/- to the child. It is reported during the course of argument that the said amount was not paid by the applicant.
In order to substantiate their rival claims, the parties entered into to the witness box and also examined their respective witnesses.
The main submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant/husband is that the non-applicant/wife is more educated and can secure the employment for her. His submission is that she cannot be said to be the dependent on the present applicant. He submitted that even before the learned Judge of the Court below it is pointed out that the wife is working and is having her independent source of income.
In order to substantiate his claim about the factum that the wife is working, three witnesses were examined by the applicant/husband. The applicant''s witness no.2 was Prafulkumar Khushalchand Gupta, he is the Deputy Manager of SNDL Company which provides energy. He has proved document in respect of Consumer No. 40010353525. It is at Exhibit-92. It is clear from his evidence that the said electricity connection is for commercial purposes. Exhibit-92 shows that it is in the name of Shri Bhimrao Uke who is the father of the non-applicant no.1/wife. According to the applicant, in view of this electric connection is clear that the wife is getting such electric connection for commercial purpose. The submission of the applicant is misconceived. Exhibit-92 is the electrical consumption bill issued by SPANCO, Nagpur DISCOM Limited is though for a commercial purpose it stands in the name of the father of non-applicant no.1/wife. It is in no way concerned with the non-applicant no.1/wife.
Merely because the father of the wife is having a commercial electric connection that by itself is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the wife is having the independent source of income to maintain herself.
The other two witnesses examined by the applicant/husband those are Reeta and Nita. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the wife is serving at one Bhavani Gas. He has also filed on record a video clip to show that the wife is working on the computer.
Witnesses Reeta and Nita had admitted that name of Bhavani Gas is not appearing in the video clip. Further they show ignorance about the non-applicant no.1. Though they were the witnesses of the applicant/husband they did not support the case of the applicant and therefore they were cross examined extensively. However, nothing could be elucidated through their cross examination. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to upset the finding of fact recorded by the Court below that the husband has failed to prove that wife is serving at Bhavani Gas.
Further, if for her survival the wife is serving somewhere that cannot be taken a circumstance in favour of the husband. In the present case, there is nothing available on record to substantiate the claim of the husband in that behalf.
Though the applicant has denied his salary. For the reasons best known to the applicant, he failed to produce any document on record to show his salary. Thus, the applicant has withheld the best possible evidence which is available in his custody. In view of the matter, the adverse inference is required to be drawn against the applicant. Since the applicant has failed to point out his salary which is in his special knowledge, the word of the wife about the salary needs to be accepted.
The just right of the wife and daughter is denied by the applicant who is under obligation to maintain them. In my view, no exception can be taken in respect of the appreciation of the evidence at the hands of the learned Judge of the Court below.
Though the applicant is having sufficient means to maintain the non-applicants for no reason he has neglected and refused to maintain the non-applicants, the non-applicants are required to file the execution proceedings against the applicant which are still pending. The aforesaid discussion, leads me to pass the following order :-
Criminal Revision Application No. 186 of 2014 is dismissed.
Looking to the fact that the maintenance is denied by the applicant from 2013 the applicant is required to be ordered to pay the costs and also the expenses incurring for the litigation charges since non-applicants are dragged to this Court by the applicant. The costs and litigation charges are quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.
Rule stands discharged.