Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1453 (BOM)

Asif Khan v. Shahanazbee

2014-07-07

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT V.M. DESHPANDE, J. 1. By the present Revision, the applicant is challenging the order, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition E-470 of 1998, whereby the learned court below was pleased to direct the present applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month to respondent no. 2 from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 20.7.1998 2. None for the applicant. I have heard Smt. A.N. Ansari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.H. Dighe, learned APP for respondent no. 3. 3. It is to be mentioned here that by judgment and order, dated 16.4.1999, the learned Family Court disposed of two petitions by the common judgment. 4. Petition A-484 of 1997 was filed on behalf of the present applicant against respondent no. 1 for restitution of conjugal rights. Petition E-470 of 1998 was filed on behalf of present respondent nos. 1 and 2 against the present applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. 5. Present judgment will decide only the correctness of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition E-470 of 1998. 6. It is an admitted position that present respondent no. 1 is wife of present applicant and respondent no. 2 is daughter of present applicant. The wife and minor child were required to file proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Aurangabad since the applicant neglected them and failed to provide any maintenance to them. Respondent no. 1 entered into witness box. She deposed that present applicant is a rickshaw driver, getting Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per day. He owns a rickshaw. 7. From the line of cross-examination, it appears that the defence of present applicant was that present respondent no. 1 was having some relations prior to her marriage. Nothing could be brought on record by present applicant to impeach the testimony of respondent no. 1 wife. Only suggestions were given to respondent/wife which were stoutly denied by her. 8. On appreciation, learned Judge of the Family Court found that present respondent no. 1 wife has proved that she and her child were neglected by present applicant. According to the court below, she has proved that she has no means to maintain herself and her daughter. Only suggestions were given to respondent/wife which were stoutly denied by her. 8. On appreciation, learned Judge of the Family Court found that present respondent no. 1 wife has proved that she and her child were neglected by present applicant. According to the court below, she has proved that she has no means to maintain herself and her daughter. According to the court below, the evidence shows that present applicant is having sufficient means to maintain the respondents. 9. I see no reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the court below. Further looking to the meager amount of maintenance, it will not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad. 10. Hence, present Criminal Revision Application fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. Revision application dismissed.