JUDGMENT

Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel for the applicant remained absent. Even on the earlier dates, none had remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly transpires that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, decided on 11.08.2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the present revision application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the applicant based on available material on record..

1) Present criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been preferred by the applicant herein – husband requesting to quash and set aside the order dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajkot, in Criminal Misc. Application No.308/2017, whereby the applicant is directed to pay Rs.4,000/ per month towards monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of application.

2) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No.2 got married as per the Muslim rites and rituals. After the marriage, the husband had beaten the wife and through her out of the house and asked her not to come back again and thereafter, never taken care of her. Therefore, the wife has initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The learned Family Court vide order dated 19.04.2019 allowed the application of the wife and ordered the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- p.m towards maintenance to the wife. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision application is filed.

3) Perusing the record, it appears that the husband has filed present application on the ground that the applicant is earning Rs. 40,000/- monthly and the present applicant or his family members never insist resp. No.2 to leave the home. The resp. No.2 had left home at her own will. It is also submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to stay with resp. No.2 i.e. wife and the applicant had not deserted her and she left the home of the applicant willingly. That the resp. No.2 is earning Rs.40,000/- by doing beauty parlour work and therefore, she is in a position to maintain herself and therefore, the applicant has filed this application with a prayer that, the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for fresh hearing after granting sufÏcient opportunity of hearing to canvass arguments and led the evidence to show that wife is earning and matter may be decided by party hearing on merits. Initially the applicant was trying to settle the dispute therefore, the applicant did not challenge the order but recently it came to the knowledge of the applicant that the wife is working and earning handsome amount and therefore, in light of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusum Bhatia V/s. Sagar Sethi wherein the Hon'ble Apex court had declined to award any maintenance to the wife, who was working with sufÏcient income. It is also submitted that the respondent has stated in the application that, marriage was solemnized on 17-02-2014 and the applicant had taken care of her for a period of 3 months and she filed the complaint u/s. 125 on 22-03-2017 while stating that, husband had started harassing her but she did not register any complaint for the long years and therefore she is not liable to any compensation towards the mental and physical harassment.

4) It also appears that denying the income of Rs.40,000/- p.m, the applicant has stated that he is earning Rs.5,000/- by doing cotton weaving works, but no evidence with respect is produced on record. Learned Family court has observed that the husband has suppressed his income and hence, adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act has been drawn. Considering more