WP-3077 OF 2024.doc v. Vanita Sopan Kajale & Ors.

Mr. Narayan Rokade a/w Mr. Ramchandra Wagh, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. V. Walve, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Rahul Motkari a/w Ms. Mansi Pawar, for Respondent No. 1 in both Writ Petitions. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 06 AUGUST 2026 P.C.:

1. Heard, Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Rahul Motkari, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. 1 903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc

2. The Petitioner is challenging in Writ Petition No. 3078 of 2024 the order dated 15th December 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (“JMFC”), Chandwad, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 16 of 2016 filed under the Provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the order dated 03rd January 2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2022. By the impugned order dated 15th December 2021, the learned JMFC directed the payment of Rs.1,000/- towards house rent and Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance per month each to the wife and the daughter. The said order was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court by its order dated 03rd January 2024.

3. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the affidavit, as directed to be filed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish vs. Neha1 has not been filed, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand Mr. Motkari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submitted that, the Petitioner-husband and Respondent-wife have been residing separately for the last 10 years. He further submitted that, as a daughter is born, the petitioner is not ready to cohabit with the Respondent-wife. It is submitted that, in fact, the Petitioner-husband is having relations outside the marriage and false allegations are made against the Respondent-wife that she is in a 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 2 903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc relationship with some other person. He submits that, in fact the Petitioner-husband has also not filed the affidavit as directed by the Supreme Court in the Case of Rajnish (supra).

5. Perusal of the record shows that the learned Trial Court has observed that, in first written statement which has been filed in the D. V. Proceedings, no allegations were made that the Respondent-Wife was having a relationship with some third person. Thereafter, the Petitioner- husband has changed the Advocate and the new Advocate again filed written statement and made the said allegations.

6. It is required to be noted that the factual aspects on record show that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 21st March 2011 and daughter was born on 24th August

2013. It is an admitted position that, since the birth of the daughter, the Petitioner is not residing with the wife. The record further shows that, the wife has single-handedly maintained the child.

7. It is further relevant to note that the Petitioner was a Professor and, after the filing of the D.V. Proceedings, resigned his job of professor and claims that now he is working as an agriculturist. In fact, the learned Trial Court found that he is getting sufficient income even as an agriculturist. The learned Trial court has noted that, income from Cotton, Groundnut, Bajra, Maize and Onion Crop fetches good amount and therefore, awarded maintenance. The operative part of the order 3 reads as under:- 903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc “1. The application is partly allowed with cost. 2. The respondents are directed not to commit any acts of domestic violence on applicant either by approaching applicants or contacting applicants by means of telephone, mobile or any electronic means of communication.

3. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand only) as house rent to applicant per month from the date of application i.e. 02-02-2016.

4. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. Five Thousand only) to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. Five Thousand only) to applicant No. 2 ife. Total Rs. 10,000/- to applicants as maintenance (monetary relief) to applicants from the date of application i.e. 02-02- 2016.

5. The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) as compensation to applicant.

6. The respondents are directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- of this application.

7. The Interim Order passed on Ex. 03 Dated 24-01-2018 stands vacated from today and payments made under it to applicant shall be adjusted accordingly.” (Emphasis added)

8. The Appellate Court has observed that the maintenance awarded is reasonable and therefore, no interference in the impugned order of the learned Trial Court is warranted.

9. Perusal of the record shows that there is huge arrears of about Rs.9,11,000/-. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned order is warranted under the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. As far as Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2024 is concerned, the challenge is to the legality and validity of order dated 01st February 4 903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc 2024 passed by learned JMFC, Chandwad below Exhibit 38 in Criminal M. A. No. 6 of 2022. The learned JMFC has sentenced the Petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of six months as there is huge default in the payment of the maintenance amount. This is a case where the Petitioner, who was working as a Professor, resigned from his job after the D.V Proceedings are filed and now claiming that he is an agriculturist. He has not even been maintaining his daughter.

11. It is the case of the Respondent- wife that, as a daughter is born, he is not even ready to reside with her and daughter. As the huge arrears of Rs. 9,11,000/- are there, no interference in the impugned order under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted, as the said jurisdiction is extraordinary and discretionary.

12. Accordingly, both Writ Petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the Respondent-wife within a period of 4 weeks from today. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 5