The court upheld the maintenance order based on substantiated income claims and findings of desertion lacking justifiable evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 01-12-2025 I.A. No. 01 of 2025 The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition.

2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment is dated 21.12.2024 and the revision petition has been filed on 17.03.2025 and hence, the revision petition is well within the period of limitation.

3. In the light of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands disposed of considering it to be unwarranted.

Criminal Revision No. 282 of 2025

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Maintenance Case No. 114 of 2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment dated 21.12.2024 is bad in law as well as on facts. Learned trial court did not appreciate the issue involved in the present case. Learned trial court ignored the fact about the opposite party no. 2 voluntarily withdrawing herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable and cogent reason. The opposite party no. 2 voluntarily left her matrimonial home after 20-22 days of the marriage and did not return thereafter. But this fact was not considered by the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court considered the income of the petitioner on higher side mainly on the claim of opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner earns Rs.2,50,000/- per month and has also earns Rs.1,50,000/- per month as rent. But the actual salary of the petitioner was only Rs.1,44,900/- in Indian rupees and Rs.8,000/- from the family property. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is still ready to keep his wife with honour and dignity and this fact was also not considered by the learned trial court. Thus, learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment suffers from illegality, infirmity and impropriety and needs interference by this Court.

7. Perused the records.

8. From perusal of record, it is apparent that the opposite party, petitioner herein, appeared before the learned trial court and filed his written statement and also his affidavit of assets and liabilities. Subsequently, he stopped attending the court and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.10.2024. Still, the written statement and affidavit of assets and liabilities have come on record. Now whatever may be the submission on behalf of the petitioner before this Court about the petitioner willing to keep his wife with honour and dignity or that the wife deserted him without any sound reason, this Court could not consider the submission at this stage if the petitioner failed to contest the claim of the opposite party no. 2 before the learned trial court and further failed to substantiate his ground for denying the maintenance amount to opposite party no. 2. The petitioner could not allowed to take up this defence for the first time before this Court in absence of any evidence before the learned trial court.

9. Moreover, unless there is a finding recorded by any court that desertion of opposite party no. 2 is not reasonable, the petitioner could not get any benefit from his submission before this Court.

10. So far as the contest to the income of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner himself produced this affidavit of assets and liabilities is apparent from paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, wherein he has stated his income to be Rs.1,76,000/- while working as Assistant Manager in some cafe and Rs.8,000/- per month from the rent. So far as rental income is concerned, in ground no. (viii), it has been mentioned that the the said property belonged to the grandfather of the petitioner and the petitione