The court affirmed that a wife is entitled to maintenance unless disqualified, emphasizing the husband's obligation to support her, especially when she has been subjected to harassment.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner – husband has challenged the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.198/2013, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month along with cost of application of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent – wife.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Pruthivraj Solanki for learned advocate, Mr. A.S. Asthavadi for the petitioner, learned advocate, Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya for the respondent no.1 and learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent no.2 – State of Gujarat.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – husband got married with the respondent – wife on 09.12.2001 and after the marriage, both started residing together along with the family of the petitioner – husband but somehow in the year 2009, the respondent – wife left her matrimonial house without any reason and, thereafter, she filed an application for maintenance before the learned Family Judge, Bhavnagar being Criminal Misc. Application No.198/2013 inter alia praying for maintenance of Rs.20,000/-, however, learned Judge, without properly considering the income of the petitioner– husband and other documents, passed impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/-per month to the respondent – wife, which is under challenge before this Court. Learned advocate submitted that while issuing notice by this Court, ad-interim relief was granted by this Court on a condition to deposit Rs.50,000/- within ten days from that day, Rs.1,00,000/- within six weeks from that day and to pay Rs.5,000/- per month regularly to the respondent – wife towards the maintenance pending this application and as on date, the petitioner is regularly paying the amount of maintenance to the respondent – wife without any break.

4. Learned advocate submitted that at the time of passing of the impugned order, the learned Judge has not properly considered the income of the petitioner and thereby committed an error in awarding amount, which is too high on the part of the petitioner because it is not possible for the petitioner to pay such high maintenance amount and the petitioner is also having other liability. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, there was no mental and physical harassment upon the respondent – wife as alleged and on the contrary, the respondent – wife has voluntarily left her matrimonial house for the reasons best known to her. Learned advocate further submitted that in other words, it can be said that the respondent – wife has deserted the petitioner – husband and the petitioner – husband had tried his level best to bring her back to her matrimonial house but she refused to return back to her matrimonial house and the said facts have been pointed out to the learned Judge concerned but it has not been properly considered by the learned Judge and wrongly passed an order of maintenance, which is impugned in this petition. Learned advocate submitted that the respondent – wife is well educated and she can maintain herself by doing some job when she has deserted the petitioner – husband. Learned advocate at this stage has put reliance upon the cross-examination of the respondent – wife done before the learned Judge while deciding the application for maintenance, copy of which is produced on record at Annexure-C of the compilation and submitted that in her cross-examination, the respondent – wife has stated in a categorical terms that she has left her matrimonial house with her own will and wish and also stated that she is not willing to go and stay with the petitioner – husband, which clearly goes on to show that it is the respondent – wife, who does not wish to stay with the petitioner – husband and, hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance and, hence, the impugned order granting maintenance may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned advocate, at this stage, has put reliance upon the provision of Section 125 (4) of the C