Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 95 (BOM)

Vijayarani v. Punjabrao Uttamrao Jawanjal

2022-01-11

AVINASH G.GHAROTE

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Katkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nandeshwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. Haider, learned APP for the respondent No.2/State. 2. Mr. Katkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, undertakes to deposit the requisite court fee of Rs.125.00 today itself. 3. The only issue in the matter, is the reversal of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur passed under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure granting maintenance of Rs.1,000.00 (Rs. One Thousand Only) to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, which has been reversed by the learned Sessions Court, Akola, by holding that the husband has no fixed source of income, since he is doing a tailoring job, whereas the mother being employed as a teacher has a fixed salary of nearly Rs. 50,000/- per month. 4. Mr. Katkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the respondent No.1/husband being an abled bodied person is legally and morally bound to contribute to the maintenance of the children, and therefore, the learned Sessions Court, Akola, ought not to have reversed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur. 5. Mr. Nandeshwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits, that insofar as, the legal and moral responsibility of the respondent No.1 to contribute towards the maintenance of the children, the same cannot be disputed, however, the question for contribution, has necessarily to be linked to the income of the respondent No.1. He further submits, that in these hard times of Covid-19 pandemic, there is hardly any work available for the respondent No.1, considering which, the learned Sessions Court, Akola, has rightly passed the impugned judgment. He further submits, that since the respondent No.1 has suffered a heart attack, the Doctor had advised him not to even undertake tailoring work because of his health. 6. It cannot be disputed, that the respondent No.1, would morally and legally be bound to contribute towards the maintenance of the children. However in the peculiar circumstances arsing in the present matter, the respondent No.1, who was doing tailoring work, due to the pandemic, obviously, appears to be in dire straits, which has adversely affected the income. Considering the admitted position, that the mother of the petitioners, is employed as a teacher, having a permanent job and her salary, as of now, as per the statement of Mr. Considering the admitted position, that the mother of the petitioners, is employed as a teacher, having a permanent job and her salary, as of now, as per the statement of Mr. Katkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, is Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Only), she is much well of, to maintain the children. In view of which, in absence of anything placed on record regarding the income of respondent No.1 and also considering the situation arisen out of Covid-19 pandemic, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Court, Akola. The petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. 7. Needless to say, that in future, if the petitioners are able to bring on record material to indicate the income of the respondent No.1, the petitioners will be fully entitled, to move an appropriate application before the learned trial Court for grant of maintenance. 8. Rule is discharged.