ORDER :

1. This Revision Application is filed by the petitioner – husband challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Navsari dated 13.03.2020 whereby respondent no.1 – wife has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 01.04.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2019 under Section 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 dated 02.09.2009, 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.

2.1 He has further submitted that though they separated by way of compromise between the parties in civil litigation since 2009, she has filed this proceedings claiming maintenance against the petitioner – husband only in the year 2019, and therefore, she cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself as she had maintained herself for about 10 years after they started staying separate. He has further submitted that, as stated in her application as also in her deposition, she was running a Beauty Parlour and earning sufficiently, and therefore, it is submitted that she cannot claim maintenance from the petitioner – husband now. He has further submitted that once she is put in possession of the premises agreed between the parties, where she is staying right now, it cannot be said that no sufficient care is taken by the petitioner – husband to maintain her, since without any sufficient reason, she has refused to live with her husband and on the contrary willingly she is staying in separate premises provided by the petitioner – husband, and therefore, he cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the maintenance. He has further submitted that for awarding maintenance, the income of the petitioner – husband is not determined, and therefore, the order of maintenance passed by the Court is erroneous.

2.2 He has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is without applying mind and it is not supported by evidence so far as it relates to the earning /income of the petitioner – husband is concerned.

2.3 He has further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Judge, based on assertion by respondent no.1 – wife, that the petitioner – husband is having affair with some lady is without any proof thereof, and therefore, it is cruelty to the husband, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. He has further submitted that the petitioner – husband has taken good care of his son, whom he has brought up and respondent no.1 – wife has never cared for his well being. He has further submitted that since he has on oath in this memo of Revision Application stated that he is not earning, there is no reason to award maintenance to respondent no.1 – wife, that too, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

2.4 He has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is as such ex parte and when he has paid substantial amount, in this background the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back for the purpose of leading evidence by the petitioner – husb