NIRAJKUMAR KAPURCHAND JAIN Vs. SMT. SWEETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel Shri P.U. Nandanwar for the applicant and learned counsel Shri Vikrant Pandey for the non-applicant.

(2.) These two revision applications arise out a common judgment passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Court No.3, Nagpur dated 3.12.2016 by which learned Judge of the Family Court allowed Petition No.E169 of 2013 and Petition No.E103 of 2014 which were filed before the said Court under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance by present non-applicants. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge of the Court below has allowed both petitions and directed that applicants, in those proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are entitled to receive Rs.7,000.00 per month by way of maintenance from the present applicant.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel Shri Nandanwar for the applicant is that it is the wife who has withdrawn her cohabitation from the company of applicant and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. He also submits that in fact a petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights was filed in the competent Court at Bhopal and learned Judge of the said Court on 16.1.2016 allowed the said petition. He, therefore, submits that wife, who has withdrawn herself from the company of applicant herein, is not entitled for maintenance.