18. The learned Judge has considered how the wife can maintain herself. He has also enumerated in the order in India as well as abroad. She looked after financial affairs of her husband in his absence. She refused to give her marriage another chance after being supported by her community elders. She has also not filed her income tax returns and has suppressed her material facts of income. The learned Judge has considered the fallout of various visits abroad whilst she is a school teacher. Hence the Court rejected maintenance to the wife who is the school teacher.
considered that parties lived together only for 9 months during 6 to 7 years of marriage after which the wife went to her father’s flat where she lives in reasonable luxury. She went for vacations to various places
considered that parties lived together only for 9 months during 6 to 7 years of marriage after which the wife went to her father’s flat where she lives in reasonable luxury. She went for vacations to various places
Bombay High Court
1 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2013
Shabnam Badri …Applicant(Orig. Applicant)
Vs.
Shabbir Badri …Respondent(Orig.Respdt.)
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Applicant
Mr. Shoib Menon for Respondent No.1
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 435 OF 2012
Shabbir Badri …Applicant(Orig. Respondent)
Vs.
Shabnam Badri …Respondent(Orig.Applicant)
Mr. Shoib Menon for Applicant
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Respondent No.1
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2013
P.C. :
1. The Criminal Revision Application No.435 of 2012 had
appeared on board on 14th December, 2012 since the applicant
husband was not present it has been dismissed. It is restored to
hear both the parties, the husband and wife on merits.
2. The husband is a Seaman. His cross examination shows
that he was a Radio Officer till 1998. In 2005 he became a Chief
Officer. Thereafter he was the Master of Ship until 2010. His
job was on contract basis. He could not produce the written
contract. He claims to be earning about Rs. 1 lakh. He has not
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
2 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
produced any documentary evidence to show that fact. He was
asked about this in his evidence. He failed to produce the
documents of service showing his emoluments. He instead
produced his income tax returns. His salary is in US dollars. It
is tax free. It would not be reflected in income tax returns. His
income tax returns would show income otherwise from his
salary. His income tax returns show only the first page of the
returns without any annexures showing the computation of
income. It is shown only to be rejected. His income tax returns
do not carry his case any further.
3. The husband claims that he lost his job. This would have
to be proved by showing the bank account of the earning whilst
he admittedly was a master of ship and then to show the
continuance of that bank account having no credits. That is not
produced.
4. The evidence has considered certain insurance policies.
The husband in his cross examination has admitted that he had
a Current Bank Account in HSBC Bank, UK. He corrected to state
that that was a Midland bank and then corrected to state that
he did not recollect the bank account. He admitted that he had
HSBC NRE Bank account at Fort. He admitted that he had
HSBC NRO Bank account at Bandra(W), Branch. He has a
saving account with ICICI Bank at Mira Road Branch and he has
ICICI Bank account with Santacruz Branch. He refused to
produce the statements of the bank account. He accepted that
some of them are of joint accounts. He also accepted that he has
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
3 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
a shop which he has disposed of for Rs.4 lakhs after having
purchased it for Rs. 5 lakhs. Such real estate value has had no
parallel in Mumbai.
5. His case of income has to be seen only from his admitted
employment position as the Master of the Ship. The wife claims
that he would be earning Rs.5 lakhs. He claims that he is
earning only Rs. 1 lakh. The learned Judge has considered a
reasonable figure based upon an analysis of what he earns. That
would have to be accepted by the Court.
6. The husband’s evidence is seen to be wholly evasive and
dishonest. The husband who is the Master of Ship is bound and
liable to maintain his wife who is a school teacher. The husband
has shown his bank account having paltry figures as bank
balance. From cross examination it would show and suggest
that there is another account in which his entire salary has been
credited. No such bank account is shown.
7. He has deposed that he used to obtain his salary in cash or
cheques depending on situation.
8. The husband contends that he was asked in the cross
examination and he has produced thereupon his continuance
discharge certificate which would show that he was actually
employed for only a few months each year. The husband has
tendered his continuance certificate to this Court also. There are
entries of certain years showing certain months in which he was
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
4 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
under contract. The entries are for the years 2001 to 2010
showing him as Chief Officer and Master. These entries are for
about six months at a time.
9. Persons on offshore jobs are given allowance during the
period when they are on shore. These allowances would be
lesser than while they work offshore while they are on actual
duties. The husband has not shown his offshore emoluments
during his contractual period of his service.
10. The husband has shown that he has to incur personal
expenses of Rs.2 lakhs p.m whilst he is on offshore. Hence his
income would be at least more than Rs. 2 lakhs. The learned
Judge has computed the income of the husband upon rational
analysis.
11. It is seen that the husband has also produced statements of
his mutual funds. There are various investments in mutual
funds. They are in tax relief fund–dividend payout option,
SBMPP – dividend option etc. The husband also has individual
health insurance policy which is also required for tax relief.
12. The wife is a School Teacher. She has also not produced
her salary slips. Her salary has only been stated like her
husband’s. Both have given figures of the salary allegedly
earned and thought to be earned. Both such figures per se
cannot be accepted. The learned Judge has computed her salary
also. That also would, therefore, have to be accepted.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
5 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
13. The wife’s parental home is at Khar. Her matrimonial
home is in Mira Road. She went to reside in Mira Road. She
could not reside because there were no servants to assist her.
She has many servants in her father’s house. She went back to
her parental house and refused to go back to her matrimonial
home. It would have to be seen whether it is justified for the
wife of a Master of the ship to expect to have a domestic
assistant by way of a maid. For the wife of a Clerk that same
would be unjustified. These basic differences are required to be
kept in mind.
14. Oblivious of that difference, the husband claims that he
has called his wife to stay in his home but the wife refused to
stay and hence she is not entitled to maintenance. The analogy
is incorrect and must be rejected.
15. The evidence of the wife shows that she uses a car
purchased by the Respondent. That would show the status of
the respondent. The respondent has given a car, but not the
maintenance amount. Hence she was constrained to sue for
maintenance.
16. It is seen that the husband has not fully shown his income
as also his investments. However the wife has also not shown
her income as a teacher. Adverse inference must be drawn
against both the parties.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
6 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
17. The wife has only shown the expenses of the children
whose custody she has. The parties have two children they are
in VIII standard and IX standard. They attend Leelawati Poddar
High School. The term fees per child is in a range of
Rs.20,000/ to Rs.24,500/.
18. The learned Judge has considered how the wife can
maintain herself. He has also considered that parties lived
together only for 9 months during 6 to 7 years of marriage after
which the wife went to her father’s flat where she lives in
reasonable luxury. She went for vacations to various places
enumerated in the order in India as well as abroad. She looked
after financial affairs of her husband in his absence. She refused
to give her marriage another chance after being supported by
her community elders. She has also not filed her income tax
returns and has suppressed her material facts of income. The
learned Judge has considered the fallout of various visits abroad
whilst she is a school teacher. The learned Judge has reasonably
considered the suppression by both the parties, the income and
investments of both the parties, and their usual standard of
living.
19. The learned Judge has considered the respective salaries of
the parties and granted maintenance based upon the aforesaid
evidence of Rs.10,000/ each to the children. The learned
Judge has not granted any maintenance to the wife who is a
school teacher.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
7 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
20. The conclusion of the learned Judge that she is capable of
maintaining herself cannot be faulted. Hence the impugned
order cannot be interfered with in her criminal revision
application. Similarly the payment of maintenance only for the
children which is also challenged by the husband cannot be
faulted in view of his shown and suppressed earnings.
21. Of course this is only in the petition under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C where the wife must show that she cannot maintain
herself. She would be entitled to alimony and maintenance as
per law in other proceedings between the husband and wife.
22. For the expenses she claims for her children Rs.10000/
per month each granted to the children is seen to be reasonable.
23. Consequently the impugned order which has been
challenged by both the parties does not require any interference.
Both the petitions are dismissed.
24. The husband shall forthwith pay all the arrears of
maintenance already granted.
(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
Vs.
Shabbir Badri …Respondent(Orig.Respdt.)
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Applicant
Mr. Shoib Menon for Respondent No.1
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 435 OF 2012
Shabbir Badri …Applicant(Orig. Respondent)
Vs.
Shabnam Badri …Respondent(Orig.Applicant)
Mr. Shoib Menon for Applicant
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Respondent No.1
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2013
P.C. :
1. The Criminal Revision Application No.435 of 2012 had
appeared on board on 14th December, 2012 since the applicanthusband was not present it has been dismissed. It is restored to
hear both the parties, the husband and wife on merits.
2. The husband is a Seaman. His cross examination shows
that he was a Radio Officer till 1998. In 2005 he became a Chief
Officer. Thereafter he was the Master of Ship until 2010. His
job was on contract basis. He could not produce the written
contract. He claims to be earning about Rs. 1 lakh. He has not
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
2 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
produced any documentary evidence to show that fact. He was
asked about this in his evidence. He failed to produce the
documents of service showing his emoluments. He instead
produced his income tax returns. His salary is in US dollars. It
is tax free. It would not be reflected in income tax returns. His
income tax returns would show income otherwise from his
salary. His income tax returns show only the first page of the
returns without any annexures showing the computation of
income. It is shown only to be rejected. His income tax returns
do not carry his case any further.
3. The husband claims that he lost his job. This would have
to be proved by showing the bank account of the earning whilst
he admittedly was a master of ship and then to show the
continuance of that bank account having no credits. That is not
produced.
4. The evidence has considered certain insurance policies.
The husband in his cross examination has admitted that he had
a Current Bank Account in HSBC Bank, UK. He corrected to state
that that was a Midland bank and then corrected to state that
he did not recollect the bank account. He admitted that he had
HSBC NRE Bank account at Fort. He admitted that he had
HSBC NRO Bank account at Bandra(W), Branch. He has a
saving account with ICICI Bank at Mira Road Branch and he has
ICICI Bank account with Santacruz Branch. He refused to
produce the statements of the bank account. He accepted that
some of them are of joint accounts. He also accepted that he has
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
3 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
a shop which he has disposed of for Rs.4 lakhs after having
purchased it for Rs. 5 lakhs. Such real estate value has had no
parallel in Mumbai.
5. His case of income has to be seen only from his admitted
employment position as the Master of the Ship. The wife claims
that he would be earning Rs.5 lakhs. He claims that he is
earning only Rs. 1 lakh. The learned Judge has considered a
reasonable figure based upon an analysis of what he earns. That
would have to be accepted by the Court.
6. The husband’s evidence is seen to be wholly evasive and
dishonest. The husband who is the Master of Ship is bound and
liable to maintain his wife who is a school teacher. The husband
has shown his bank account having paltry figures as bank
balance. From cross examination it would show and suggest
that there is another account in which his entire salary has been
credited. No such bank account is shown.
7. He has deposed that he used to obtain his salary in cash or
cheques depending on situation.
8. The husband contends that he was asked in the cross
examination and he has produced thereupon his continuance
discharge certificate which would show that he was actually
employed for only a few months each year. The husband has
tendered his continuance certificate to this Court also. There are
entries of certain years showing certain months in which he was
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
4 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
under contract. The entries are for the years 2001 to 2010
showing him as Chief Officer and Master. These entries are for
about six months at a time.
9. Persons on offshore jobs are given allowance during the
period when they are on shore. These allowances would be
lesser than while they work offshore while they are on actual
duties. The husband has not shown his offshore emoluments
during his contractual period of his service.
10. The husband has shown that he has to incur personal
expenses of Rs.2 lakhs p.m whilst he is on offshore. Hence his
income would be at least more than Rs. 2 lakhs. The learned
Judge has computed the income of the husband upon rational
analysis.
11. It is seen that the husband has also produced statements of
his mutual funds. There are various investments in mutual
funds. They are in tax relief fund–dividend payout option,
SBMPP – dividend option etc. The husband also has individual
health insurance policy which is also required for tax relief.
12. The wife is a School Teacher. She has also not produced
her salary slips. Her salary has only been stated like her
husband’s. Both have given figures of the salary allegedly
earned and thought to be earned. Both such figures per se
cannot be accepted. The learned Judge has computed her salary
also. That also would, therefore, have to be accepted.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
5 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
13. The wife’s parental home is at Khar. Her matrimonial
home is in Mira Road. She went to reside in Mira Road. She
could not reside because there were no servants to assist her.
She has many servants in her father’s house. She went back to
her parental house and refused to go back to her matrimonial
home. It would have to be seen whether it is justified for the
wife of a Master of the ship to expect to have a domestic
assistant by way of a maid. For the wife of a Clerk that same
would be unjustified. These basic differences are required to be
kept in mind.
14. Oblivious of that difference, the husband claims that he
has called his wife to stay in his home but the wife refused to
stay and hence she is not entitled to maintenance. The analogy
is incorrect and must be rejected.
15. The evidence of the wife shows that she uses a car
purchased by the Respondent. That would show the status of
the respondent. The respondent has given a car, but not the
maintenance amount. Hence she was constrained to sue for
maintenance.
16. It is seen that the husband has not fully shown his income
as also his investments. However the wife has also not shown
her income as a teacher. Adverse inference must be drawn
against both the parties.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
6 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
17. The wife has only shown the expenses of the children
whose custody she has. The parties have two children they are
in VIII standard and IX standard. They attend Leelawati Poddar
High School. The term fees per child is in a range of
Rs.20,000/ to Rs.24,500/.
18. The learned Judge has considered how the wife can
maintain herself. He has also considered that parties lived
together only for 9 months during 6 to 7 years of marriage after
which the wife went to her father’s flat where she lives in
reasonable luxury. She went for vacations to various places
enumerated in the order in India as well as abroad. She looked
after financial affairs of her husband in his absence. She refused
to give her marriage another chance after being supported by
her community elders. She has also not filed her income tax
returns and has suppressed her material facts of income. The
learned Judge has considered the fallout of various visits abroad
whilst she is a school teacher. The learned Judge has reasonably
considered the suppression by both the parties, the income and
investments of both the parties, and their usual standard of
living.
19. The learned Judge has considered the respective salaries of
the parties and granted maintenance based upon the aforesaid
evidence of Rs.10,000/ each to the children. The learned
Judge has not granted any maintenance to the wife who is a
school teacher.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
7 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
20. The conclusion of the learned Judge that she is capable of
maintaining herself cannot be faulted. Hence the impugned
order cannot be interfered with in her criminal revision
application. Similarly the payment of maintenance only for the
children which is also challenged by the husband cannot be
faulted in view of his shown and suppressed earnings.
21. Of course this is only in the petition under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C where the wife must show that she cannot maintain
herself. She would be entitled to alimony and maintenance as
per law in other proceedings between the husband and wife.
22. For the expenses she claims for her children Rs.10000/
per month each granted to the children is seen to be reasonable.
23. Consequently the impugned order which has been
challenged by both the parties does not require any interference.
Both the petitions are dismissed.
24. The husband shall forthwith pay all the arrears of
maintenance already granted.
(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
