Santosh Maruti Lade v. Poonam Santosh Lade And ORS
2024:BHC-AS:1253 Urmila Ingale 11-revn-607-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 607 OF 2017 SANTOSH MARUTI LADE ..APPLICANT VS.
POONAM SANTOSH LADE AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS Mr. Sachin S. Punde, for Applicant.
Mr. Yuvraj A. Tajane a/w Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, for the Respondents No. 1 and 2.
Ms. S. D.Shinde, APP for the State-Respondent No.3. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 11, 2024 P.C. :
1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-husband. The order dated 03/08/2017 passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/-per month each to the respondent-wife and a minor daughter is under challenge. 2.
Mr. Punde submitted that the Family Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. My attention is invited to the cross examination of the respondent-wife. It is submitted by Mr. Punde that the respondent-wife has done her course of beautician and is a graduate. It is submitted that though she can work to earn for a living, she avoided to do so only to extract the amount of maintenance from the applicant-husband. The applicant is working as a 1/2
Urmila Ingale 11-revn-607-17.doc labourer in Karad and has no sufÏcient means to pay the maintenance which is an exorbitant amount.
3.
I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-wife. I have also carefully perused the impugned order. 4.
I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Family Court. The applicant was working in the Merchant Navy for a period of almost 12 years prior to his marriage. Even on the date when the application for maintenance was filed, the applicant was working in a private company at Karad. No further details have been brought on record by the applicant in respect of his job status or about his income. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Family Court as the maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month each to the respondent-wife and a minor daughter (in total Rs.5000/- per month) can by no stretch of imagination be said to be exorbitant or unjust. 5.
The revision stands rejected.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 2/2