Farzana Begum Sk Hussain And ORS v. Shaikh Hussain Sk Mohammad

Cri.Rev.Appln.No.38/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2004 1.

Farjana Begum w/o Shaikh Hussain, Age 28 years, Occu. Household, R/o Naigaon, Taluka and District Aurangabad 2.

Ezaj s/o Sk. Hussain Age 7 years, Occu. Education 3.

Imran s/o Sk. Hussain, Age 4 years, Occu. Education .. Petitioners Petitioners No.2 and 3 u/g of petitioner No.1 and address as above

Versus

.

Shaikh Hussain s/o Shaikh Mohammad, Age 32 years, Occu. Service and agri., R/o Sompuri, Taluka and District Aurangabad ..Respondent Mr R.D. Mane, Advocate h/f Mr R.J. Ranshoor, Advocate for petitioners Mr M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent (sole) CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 19th August 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr R.D. Mane, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent.

2.

Mr Mane would urge that the maintenance awarded by an order dated 3rd November 2003 by the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.426/2003 calls for interference and the amount needs to be enhanced, as was prayed before the learned Family Court. So as to substantiate his contention, he has brought to my notice as regards the source of income of the respondent-husband.

Cri.Rev.Appln.No.38/2004 3.

It is required to be noted that the said order of grant of maintenance came to be passed on 3rd November 2003 in exercise of provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.

It is required to be noted that at the time of initiation of proceedings, the claimants Ejaz and Imran, sons of the applicant No.1 were minors, however, by lapse of time, they have attained majority. 5.

It is also required to be noted that the maintenance by the order impugned was awarded only to the sons and not to the wife. 6.

During pendency of the present proceedings, no interim order was passed in favour of the present applicants. 7.

In view thereof, in my opinion, the claim for enhancement to Rs.1,500/- per month, as is sought will be of hardly any consequence to the claimants at this stage, in view of lapse of period of more than twelve years, from the date of filing of present revision application, particularly when the claimants have attained majority. 8.

As such, no interference is called. Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. Rule discharged.

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.) vvr