NITIN Vs. VAISHALI NITIN NAGDIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) By the present revision, the applicant, who is husband of the non-applicant, is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Amravati in Petition No.E43/ 2011 by which the learned Judge allowed the petition filed on behalf of the non-applicant/wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereby directed that the applicant/husband shall pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of her application. He was also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

(3.) Ms. Satpute, learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Court below cannot stand to the scrutiny of law. She submitted that in view of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, wife is disentitle to the claim of maintenance from the husband. According to the learned Counsel, without there being any excuse, the wife has withdrawn herself from the lawful company of the husband. She submitted that the applicant was required to file proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and those proceedings were decreed by the competent Court and in spite of that, she is not joining the company of her husband. In order to buttress her submission, she relied upon the decisions of this Court Sangita Arun Mhasvade v. Arun Aba Mhasvade & another,1984 CrLJ 1524 and Mitanjali Mohanty v. Fanendra Mohanty & another, 1992 CrLJ 4046.