Asha @ Kanta Devram Nabge And ORS v. Devram Ramchandra Nabge And ANR

(1) Cri. W.P. No. 274 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Criminal Writ Petition No. 274 of 2004 District : Ahmednagar

1. Asha @ Kanta w/o. Devram Nabge, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Nil.

2. Abhijit s/o. Devram Nabge, Age : 16 years, Occupation : Education.

3. Poonam d/o. Devram Nabge, Age : 14 years, Occupation : Education.

Nos.2 and 3 are minor through their guardian Mother no.1.

All R/o. Malkup, Taluka Parner, .. Petitioners District Ahmednagar.

(Original applicants) versus

1. Devram s/o. Ramchandra Nabge, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Loni, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar.

2. The State of Maharashtra.

.. Respondents.

............

Mr. S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate, for petitioners (Absent). Mr. B.V. Dhage, Advocate, for respondent no.1 (Absent).

(2) Cri. W.P. No. 274 of 2004 Mr. K.N. Lokhande, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.2.

............

CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 ORAL ORDER:

None for the petitioners as well as for respondent no.2.

Examined the documents placed on record of the petition with the assistance of Mr. K.N. Lokhande, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2 - State of Maharashtra.

02.

Petitioners have filed this petition seeking modification of the order passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision No. 268/2003, on 26.02.2004, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to present petitioner nos.2 and 3 (daughters) and maintaining the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which present petitioner no.1 (wife) was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Petitioners have prayed that the respondent no.1 be directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month towards maintenance to each of the petitioners.

(3) Cri. W.P. No. 274 of 2004 03.

It is undisputed that petitioner no.1 is the wife of respondent no.1 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are daughters of respondent no.1. The subordinate Courts have recorded finding that the petitioners are not able to maintain themselves and respondent no.1 is liable to maintain them. The above finding recorded by the subordinate Courts and the other findings recorded by the subordinate Courts that the respondent no.1 has been working as Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department, have not been challenged by the respondent no.1. The question is only about quantum of maintenance.

04.

It is recorded in the order passed by the Sessions Court that after implementation of Vth Pay Commission, respondent no.1 was getting gross salary of Rs. 12,752/- per month. Subsequently, VIth Pay Commission is implemented and there has been substantial increase in the salary of State Government employees. Considering the fact that respondent no.1 has been working as Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department (State Government) and the status of the parties, in my view, following order would sub-serve the ends of justice :- (a) The impugned order dated 26.02.2004 is modified. (b) Respondent no.1 shall pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to petitioner no.1 (wife) towards maintenance from

(4) Cri. W.P. No. 274 of 2004 the date of filing of application before the Magistrate.

(c) Respondent no.1 shall pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to petitioner no.2 (son) towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application before the Magistrate, till petitioner no.2 attained majority. (d) Respondent no.1 shall pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to petitioner no.3 (daughter) towards maintenance from the date of filing of application before the Magistrate, till petitioner no.3 got / gets married. (e) Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.

( Z.A. HAQ ) JUDGE ..........

puranik / CRIWP274.04