ASHOK YESHWANT MATE Vs. AMITA ASHOK MATE SOU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the husband against the order directing to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- to his wife, the original applicant, in the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Rs. 100/- each to the two children. The order to this effect was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the same was confirmed by the Sessions Court in the revision application. When this writ petition was filed, Rule was issued by the Court only on the question of quantum of maintenance. The question as to whether the petitioner is at all liable to pay maintenance to his wife and children or not is, therefore, no more open for the petitioner to urge.

(2.) The question relating to the quantum of maintenance payable by the present petitioner has been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Para 16 of his judgment. He has found that the present petitioner is working in the Security Press at Nasik. A salary-slip relating to the income of the petitioner was produced before him in this proceeding and the said slip showed that he was earning about Rs. 760/- per month. In addition to this, however, the learned Judge also took into account the fact that the petitioner has interest in certain lands and household properties. This is what the learned Judge observed in this connection :

(3.) The learned Judge has also relied upon the salary slip to show that the monthly income of the petitioner was about Rs. 760/-. A grievance was made in this behalf by Mr. Vaidya for the petitioner that this was the income of the particular month for which salary slip was given. He stated that sometimes the employees are required to work over-time and in such cases, in the particular month, the income appears to be inflated. He contended that this could not be said to be the normal monthly income of the employee concerned by way of salary. Mr. Vaidya may be right on this point. It does appear that there is no evidence to show that the income of Rs. 760/- referred to by the learned Judge was the normal salary or average salary income of the present petitioner. All the same, it must be noted that the petitioner did not give evidence in the lower Court to prove the exact amount of his monthly income from salary. An adverse inference must be drawn against him on that account. An attempt was made to produce some evidence in that behalf by production of latest salary slip. I disallowed Mr. Vaidya to adduce that evidence at this late stage and I am of the opinion that if there is any error against the petitioner by way of computation of higher income from salary, that error is more or less counter-balanced by the fact that if at all he is receiving any income from the landed property the same has not been satisfactorily proved by the respondent-wife. Taking a comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no injustice would be done to the petitioner-husband if his income is computed at the figure of Rs. 760/-. Taking Rs. 760/- to be the monthly income of the petitioner, to my mind, it will be in the fitness of the things if the wife and the two children together receive Rs. 300/- for their monthly maintenance. I am of the opinion that the attitude of the respondent-wife in this case cannot be said to be quite reasonable. She has made serious allegations against the husband alleging the acts of criminality against him. Probably she is justified in making those allegations. But the point is that inspite of her conviction relating to criminal tendencies of the husband, she wants to keep herself wedded to him for all his life. The petitioner-husband had made a clear statement before me that he was prepared to make sufficient provision for the maintenance of his wife and children if the wife was prepared to separate herself from the husband by a decree of divorce by consent and to start a fresh life, thus allowing him a lead a free life of his own. The respondent-wife seems to have been advised not to accept this suggestion. I for one do not see any reason, logic or rationale, for this conduct of the respondent-wife. She does not want to stay with the husband. I do not blame her for that. She wants maintenance from the husband. I do not blame her even for that. But the petitioner-husband has made a reasonable suggestion that she could get the same thing by allowing him and her to live a life of their own by taking a divorce. This would have resulted in freedom and consequent happiness for both of them. Just with a view that the husband should not be happy in his future life, the respondent-wife wants to continue to be unhappy herself. I dont see any justification for this attitude of the respondent-wife at all. Moreover, the respondent-wife has not shown that she is unable to maintain herself. No effort is made by her to satisfy the Court in this behalf.