HEMANTKUMAR KANCHANLAL SHAH Vs. VARSHABEN HEMANTBHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is filed by the petitioner - husband challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Navsari dtd. 13/3/2020 whereby respondent no.1 - wife has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 1/4/2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2019 under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner - husband, submitted that so far as the finding recorded for issue no.1 that, whether the applicant proves that the opponent has deserted her by inflicting physical and mental cruelty without valid reason is concerned, though the answer to it is in affirmative, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in civil proceedings against each other and the terms recorded therein produced at page 28 of the compilation, it is submitted that the petitioner - husband cannot be said to have deserted respondent no.1 - wife without valid reason as it is mentioned in it that she started staying separate on and after execution of the settlement deed dtd. 2/9/2009, and therefore, he has submitted that the order of maintenance to respondent no.1 - wife by the Court directing the petitioner - husband to pay maintenance is illegal and the same be quashed and set aside.

(3.) As against that, Mr. R.K. Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.1 - wife, submitted that all the necessary evidence has been led before the Court, and therefore, the finding is recorded on appreciation of evidence, which is not required to be interfered with. He has further submitted that despite the compromise entered into between the parties and civil litigations come to an end filed by both of the parties against each other, the petitioner - husband has not obeyed the compromise deed, and therefore, since she is unable to maintain herself now, she has claimed maintenance. It is further submitted that for claiming maintenance from the petitioner - husband, there is no limitation prescribed under 'the Code', and therefore, merely because they separated in the year 2009 and this application for maintenance is preferred in the year 2019, it may not be rejected on that ground. It is further submitted that the petitioner - husband is doing business here and he is also having business in the foreign countries and earns around Rs.2.00 lakhs monthly. It is further submitted that the petitioner - husband is having immovable properties, residential as also commercial at Navsari and Mumbai. He has further submitted that since the son has already become major, there is no liability of the petitioner - husband to maintain the son except to maintain respondent no.1 - wife. It is further submitted that initially she was running a Beauty Parlor but now with age as also advancement in the field, she is unable to earn sufficiently to sustain herself, and therefore, there is no other option but to file an application for maintenance from her husband.