Home > CrPC 125 > Bombay High Court:- No maintenance u/s 125 CrPC of Wife is able to maintain herself.

Bombay High Court:- No maintenance u/s 125 CrPC of Wife is able to maintain herself.

18. The   learned   Judge   has   considered   how   the   wife   can maintain   herself.     He   has   also considered   that   parties   lived together only for 9 months during 6 to 7 years of marriage after which   the   wife   went   to   her   father’s   flat   where   she   lives   in reasonable luxury.     She  went  for  vacations  to  various  places enumerated in the order in India as well as abroad.  She looked after financial affairs of her husband in his absence.  She refused to give her marriage another chance after being supported by her community elders.   She has also not  filed her income  tax returns and has suppressed her material facts of income.   The learned Judge has considered the fallout of various visits abroad whilst she is a school teacher. Hence the Court rejected maintenance to the wife who is the school teacher.

 

Bombay High Court
1 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106  OF 2013

Shabnam Badri  …Applicant(Orig. Applicant)
Vs.
Shabbir Badri  …Respondent(Orig.Respdt.)
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Applicant
Mr. Shoib Menon  for Respondent No.1
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 435  OF 2012
Shabbir Badri      …Applicant(Orig. Respondent)
Vs.
Shabnam Badri       …Respondent(Orig.Applicant)
Mr. Shoib Menon for Applicant
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Respondent No.1
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
DATED  : 11TH MARCH, 2013
P.C. :
1. The   Criminal  Revision  Application  No.435   of   2012  had
appeared on board on 14th December, 2012 since the applicant
husband was not present it has been dismissed.  It is restored to
hear both the parties, the husband and wife on merits.
2. The husband is a Seaman.   His cross examination shows
that he was a Radio Officer till 1998.  In 2005 he became a Chief
Officer.  Thereafter he was the Master of Ship until 2010.  His
job was on contract basis.   He could not produce  the written
contract.  He claims to be earning about Rs. 1 lakh.  He has not
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
2 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
produced any documentary evidence to show that fact. He was
asked   about   this  in  his   evidence.     He   failed   to   produce   the
documents   of   service   showing   his   emoluments.     He   instead
produced his income tax returns.  His salary is in US dollars.  It
is tax free.  It would not be reflected in income tax returns.  His
income   tax   returns   would   show   income   otherwise   from   his
salary.   His income tax returns show only the first page of the
returns   without   any   annexures   showing   the   computation   of
income.  It is shown only to be rejected.  His income tax returns
do not carry his case any further.
3. The husband claims that he lost his job.  This would have
to be proved by showing the bank account of the earning whilst
he   admittedly   was   a  master  of     ship   and   then   to   show  the
continuance of that bank account having no credits.  That is not
produced.
4. The   evidence   has   considered   certain   insurance   policies.
The husband in his cross examination has admitted that he had
a Current Bank Account in HSBC Bank, UK. He corrected to state
that that was a  Midland bank and then corrected to state that
he did not recollect the bank account.   He admitted that he had
HSBC NRE Bank    account  at Fort.   He  admitted  that he had
HSBC  NRO   Bank   account  at  Bandra(W),   Branch.     He  has   a
saving account with ICICI Bank at Mira Road Branch and he has
ICICI   Bank   account   with   Santacruz   Branch.     He   refused   to
produce the statements of the bank account.  He accepted that
some of them are of joint accounts.  He also accepted that he has
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
3 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
a  shop which  he  has  disposed  of  for Rs.4 lakhs  after  having
purchased it for Rs. 5 lakhs.  Such real estate value has had no
parallel in  Mumbai.
5. His case of income has to be seen only from his admitted
employment position as the Master of the Ship.  The wife claims
that  he  would  be   earning  Rs.5  lakhs.     He   claims  that  he  is
earning only Rs. 1 lakh.   The learned Judge has considered a
reasonable figure based upon an analysis of what he earns. That
would have to be accepted by the Court.
6.   The husband’s evidence is seen to be wholly evasive and
dishonest.  The husband who is the Master of Ship is bound and
liable to maintain his wife who is a school teacher.  The husband
has   shown   his   bank   account   having   paltry   figures   as   bank
balance.  From   cross  examination it  would  show   and  suggest
that there is another account in which his entire salary has been
credited.  No such bank account is shown.
7. He has deposed that he used to obtain his salary in cash or
cheques depending on situation.
8. The   husband   contends   that   he   was   asked   in   the   cross
examination  and  he  has  produced  thereupon  his  continuance
discharge  certificate  which  would  show  that  he  was  actually
employed for only a few months each year.   The husband has
tendered his continuance certificate to this Court also.  There are
entries of certain years showing certain months in which he was
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
4 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
under  contract.    The  entries  are  for  the years  2001  to  2010
showing  him as Chief Officer and Master.  These entries are for
about six months at a time.
9. Persons on offshore jobs are given allowance during  the
period when  they  are  on  shore.   These  allowances would  be
lesser  than while  they work offshore while  they are on actual
duties.   The husband has not shown his offshore   emoluments
during his contractual period of his service.
10. The   husband   has   shown   that   he   has   to   incur   personal
expenses of Rs.2 lakhs p.m whilst he is on offshore.  Hence his
income would be at least more than Rs. 2 lakhs.  The learned
Judge has computed the income of the husband upon rational
analysis.
11. It is seen that the husband has also produced statements of
his   mutual   funds.     There   are   various   investments   in   mutual
funds.   They   are   in   tax   relief   fund–dividend   payout   option,
SBMPP – dividend option etc.  The husband also has individual
health insurance policy which is also required for tax relief.
12. The wife is a School Teacher.  She has also not produced
her   salary   slips.   Her   salary   has   only   been   stated   like   her
husband’s.     Both   have   given   figures   of   the   salary   allegedly
earned  and  thought  to  be  earned.    Both  such  figures  per  se
cannot be accepted.  The learned Judge has computed her salary
also.  That also would, therefore,  have to be accepted.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
5 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
13. The   wife’s  parental  home  is  at  Khar.     Her matrimonial
home is in Mira Road.  She went to reside in Mira Road.  She
could not reside because  there were no servants  to assist her.
She has many servants in her father’s house.  She went back to
her parental house and refused to go back to her matrimonial
home.  It would have  to be seen whether it is justified  for  the
wife   of   a   Master   of   the   ship   to   expect   to   have   a   domestic
assistant by way of a maid.  For the wife of a Clerk that same
would be unjustified.  These basic differences are required to be
kept in mind.
14. Oblivious of  that difference,  the husband claims  that he
has called his wife to stay in his home but the wife refused to
stay and hence she is not entitled to maintenance.  The analogy
is incorrect and must be rejected.
15. The   evidence   of   the   wife   shows   that   she   uses   a   car
purchased by the Respondent.   That would show the status of
the  respondent.   The respondent has given a car, but not  the
maintenance  amount.   Hence  she was  constrained  to  sue  for
maintenance.
16. It is seen that the husband has not fully shown his income
as also his investments.  However the wife has also not shown
her income  as  a  teacher.    Adverse inference  must  be  drawn
against both the parties.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
6 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
17. The   wife   has  only   shown   the   expenses  of   the  children
whose custody she has.  The parties have two children they are
in VIII standard and IX standard.  They attend Leelawati Poddar
High   School.     The   term   fees   per   child   is   in   a   range   of
Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.24,500/­.
18. The   learned   Judge   has   considered   how   the   wife   can
maintain   herself.     He   has   also   considered   that   parties   lived
together only for 9 months during 6 to 7 years of marriage after
which   the   wife   went   to   her   father’s   flat   where   she   lives   in
reasonable luxury.     She  went  for  vacations  to  various  places
enumerated in the order in India as well as abroad.  She looked
after financial affairs of her husband in his absence.  She refused
to give her marriage another chance after being supported by
her community elders.   She has also not  filed her income  tax
returns and has suppressed her material facts of income.   The
learned Judge has considered the fallout of various visits abroad
whilst she is a school teacher.  The learned Judge has reasonably
considered the suppression by both the parties, the income and
investments  of   both   the  parties,   and   their  usual  standard   of
living.
19. The learned Judge has considered the respective salaries of
the parties and granted maintenance based upon the aforesaid
evidence  of  Rs.10,000/­  each  to  the  children.      The learned
Judge has not granted any maintenance  to  the wife who is a
school teacher.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
7 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
20. The conclusion of the learned Judge that she is capable of
maintaining  herself  cannot  be  faulted.    Hence  the impugned
order   cannot   be   interfered   with   in   her   criminal   revision
application.  Similarly the payment of maintenance only for the
children  which  is  also   challenged  by  the  husband  cannot   be
faulted in view of his shown and suppressed earnings.
21. Of course this is only in the petition under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C   where   the   wife   must   show   that   she   cannot   maintain
herself.  She would be entitled to alimony and maintenance as
per law in other proceedings between the husband and wife.
22. For  the expenses  she claims  for her children Rs.10000/­
per month  each granted to the children is seen to be reasonable.
23. Consequently   the   impugned   order   which   has   been
challenged by both the parties does not require any interference.
Both the petitions are dismissed.
24. The   husband   shall   forthwith   pay   all   the   arrears   of
maintenance already granted.
(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenew.php?path=./data/criminal/2013/&fname=REVN48912110313.pdf&smflag=N

Categories: CrPC 125 Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: