UPENDRANATH CHANDRABHUSHAN CHAUBE Vs. NEETA UPENDRANATH CHAUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. SUBMISSIONS of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard earlier. An effort was made earlier to pursuade the parties to put an end to the dispute. Though the efforts were made by the learned counsel for the parties, the dispute could not be settled.

(2.) THE applicant-husband has taken an exception to the order dated 23rd May 2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, at Mumbai by which the applicant-husband has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month each to the first respondent-wife and minor daughter. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a medical practitioner.

(3.) THE parties adduced evidence. The applicant examined himself and his father as witnesses. Various contentions have been raised by the counsel for the revision applicant. It is submitted that there is nothing placed on record to show that the applicant has any source of income. She submitted that the evidence on record shows that his father is running a dispensary and the applicant is merely helping him. It is pointed out that there is material on record to show that the first respondent was running a beauty parlour business and she has sufficient income. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in absence of any evidence regarding the income of the applicant, the learned Judge of the Family Court could not have granted the maintenance.