Radha Ramesh Pol v. Ramesh Shivdas Pol And ANR

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.205 OF 2012 Radha Ramesh Pol .. Applicant vs.

Ramesh Shivdas Pol .. Respondent Mr.V.S.Nimbalkar for the applicant Mr.Ankur Pahade i/b M/s.Jay and Co. for the respondent no.1 CORAM : K. K. TATED, J.

DATE : AUGUST 3, 2017 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The matter was on board before this court on 27.7.2017. On that date, respondent was directed to place on record his bank statement for the month of April, May, June and July 2017 and / or pension slip to verify how much amount he is getting by way of pension per month. The respondent was further directed that if he failed to produce those documents, he had to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-. 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that neither the respondent placed on record bank statement and / or pension slip nor paid cost of Rs.5,000/-.

1/6

4.

The learned counsel for the respondent husband submits that he tried to contact the client but as on today he does not have any instructions.

5.

It is to be noted that, the present Criminal Application is pending since 2012. The respondent filed his Affidavit-in-Reply. From time to time, matter was adjourned at the request of advocate for respondent to take instructions and argue the matter. Today also, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that he does not have any instructions. Hence, matter is taken up for hearing as it is. 6.

By this Criminal Application, the applicant wife is challenging the order dated 21.5.2011 passed by Family Court, Nashik in Petition No.E609/2010 (Old Cr.M.A. No.337/10) under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of monthly maintenance charges from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.17,500/-.

7.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled only Rs.6,000/- by way of maintenance charges though the applicant brought on record entire evidence to show that she is entitled sum of Rs.17,500/- per month. She submits that her daughter is of marriageable age. She has to bear marriage expenses also. She submits that the respondent was working in the office of the Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts at Jabalpur. Now he retired in 2011. She submits that the applicant obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Southern Command) No.1, Finance Road, Pune 411 001. She submits that as per letter dated 3.6.2011 from Pay 2/6

account's Office, Nashik, the respondent was getting total salary of Rs.58,795/- per month. She further submits that even the respondent has two flats in Nashik. He received Rs.1,45,821/- towards the arrears amount of difference due to implementation of 6th Pay Commission. She submits that he received sum of Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of retirement. She submits that after retirement, the respondent's pension was fixed @ Rs.32,547.20 as per Office of the Principal CDA (Pensions), Allahabad by letter dated 20.7.2011. 8.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is household wife. She has to maintain her unmarried daughter. Hence, it is very difficult for her to bear the expenses of her daughter, in meager amount of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court. She further submits that she has to take care of the expenses of her daughter's marriage who is marriageable age. These facts were not considered by the Family Court at the time of passing the impugned order dated 21.5.2011. Therefore, in the interest of Justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present Criminal Application directing respondent husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.17,500/- per month. She submits that if the present Criminal Application is not allowed, irreparable injustice will be caused to the applicant. 9.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the present proceedings, the respondent filed his Affidavit-in-Reply dated 22.8.2013. He submits that the respondent in his affidavit specifically stated that though he received sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards gratuity and provident fund, that amount was used by the respondent for repayment of loan taken from the relatives and friends. He further submits that the respondent spent 3/6

Rs.3,00,000/- towards repairs and renovation work of his residential premises. He submits that as on today, the respondent is getting only Rs.10,230/- towards pension amount. He submits that as per the interim order passed by this court in the present Writ Petition he is paying sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant. He submits that it is very difficult for him to pay the monthly maintenance @ Rs.17,500/- per month.

10.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent specifically averred in his Affidavit-in-Reply that both the children are major and now they are earning. Therefore, there is no question of enhancement of any maintenance charges on the ground that the applicant has to look after her daughter as well as son. Therefore, there is no substance in the present Criminal Application and same is required to be dismissed with costs. 11.

I have heard both the sides at length. It is to be noted that matter was adjourned at the request of advocate for respondent from time to time to enable him to place on record relevant documents i.e. bank statement, pension slip and other relevant documents to know how much amount he is getting towards pension. Though the above matter was adjourned on several occasions, respondent failed and neglected to place on record the same. This itself shows that the respondent wants to suppress his real income from the court for determining the maintenance charges payable to the applicant. 12.

Respondent himself admitted in his Affidavit-in-Reply that he received Rs.15,00,000/- towards gratuity and provident fund at the time of retirement. Though the respondent stated in paragraph 8 of 4/6

Affidavit-in-Reply dated 22.8.2013 that he had spent the amount for repayment of loan taken from the relatives and friends, respondent failed and neglected to place on record names and addresses of relatives and or friends from whom he had taken loan and repaid the same. This itself shows that the respondent wants to suppress his real income. Apart from that the respondent sold part of pension and therefore he is getting as on today Rs.10,230/- per month. That cannot be a ground to oppose the present Revision Application. Because at the time of selling part of pension, he must have received lump sum amount to that effect. Just to avoid to maintain his wife, respondent is suppressing the true facts from this court.

13.

Considering the above mentioned facts and as applicant has to maintain herself as well as unmarried daughter and look after her marriage expenses, I am of the opinion that applicant has made out a case for allowing this Criminal Application. It is to be noted that the applicant has filed the application in the Trial Court for enhancement of maintenance charges on 31.5.2010 being Petition No.E-609/2010 (Old Cr.M.A. No.337/2010). Therefore, she is entitled to enhancement from 31.5.2010. The applicant has made out a case for enhancement of maintenance charges from June 2010 itself. Hence, following order is passed:

a) Criminal Application is allowed.

b) Respondent, Ramesh Shivdas Pol is directed to pay monthly maintenance charges to the applicant wife from June 2010 @ Rs.17,500/- per month.

5/6

c) Arrears of maintenance upto August, 2017 to be cleared in six monthly equal installments and also to clear cost of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by this court by order dated 27.7.2017.

d) Amount already paid by the respondent husband as per interim order passed by this court be adjusted at the time of paying maintenance charges of Rs.17,500/-.

e) Criminal Application is allowed accordingly.

f) Respondent to pay cost of Rs.2,500/- to the applicant. (K.K.TATED, J.) 6/6