High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1)908crirevapln150.25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2025WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1497 OF 2025Sayyad Javed Sayyad Rasul...APPLICANTAge-30 years, Occu-Labour, [Ori. Respondent]R/o. Mahemoodpura, Wankhedenagar,Near Patel Kirana Stores,Hudco Corner, AurangabadVERSUS1.Heena W/o. Javed Sayyad,...RESPONDENTSAge-26 years, Occu-Ladies Tailor [Ori. Applicants]R/o. Rahemaniya Colony,Galli No. 3, Aurangabad2.Haniya D/o. Javed Sayyad,Age-3 ½ years minorU/G of respondent No. 1Mr. Shakil U. Shaikh, Advocate for the applicantCORAM:ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.DATE:19th SEPTEMBER, 2025ORAL JUDGMENT :1.As Mr. Shakil U. Shaikh is appearing on behalf of theapplicant, the appearance of Mr. Quadri Tabrezuddin Rahimuddin,learned advocate, stands discharged from the proceeding.2.The applicant has preferred this application challengingthe judgment and order dated 08-10-2024 passed by the learnedJudge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in Petition No. E-78/2020,1 of 7 (2)908crirevapln150.25.odtwhereby maintenance of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/- was granted tothe respondents respectively from the date of the petition.3.At the outset, it appears that the respondents, being thewife and daughter of the applicant, filed an application for the grantof maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. against theapplicant. The learned Judge, after considering the evidence onrecord, held that the applicant is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondents from the dateof the application and accordingly passed the impugned order. 4.It is pertinent to note that the applicant is not disputingthat respondent No.1 is his wife and respondent No. 2 is his daughter.The applicant and respondent No.1 cohabited till 25-08-2020. Onthat day, the applicant demanded money from respondent No. 1, beather, and threatened to kill her. Therefore, she lodged the reportagainst him at Begampura Police Station and also filed a complaintbefore the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Aurangabad. Theapplicant possessed several landed properties and also purchasedgold ornaments. He is doing the property dealing business, earningRs. 50,000/- per month and Rs. 2 lakhs per annum from the irrigatedland. Similarly, he received rent of Rs. 30,000/- per month.Therefore, the respondents have filed the application for claimingmaintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month for respondent No.1 and Rs.2 of 7 (3)908crirevapln150.25.odt5000/- towards rent.5.The applicant denied the contention in the petition intoto and contended that respondent No. 1 is earning Rs. 8,000/- toRs. 10,000/- per month from tailoring. He requested her to cohabitwith him, but she refused, so he urged for dismissal of the originalpetition.6.The learned advocate for the applicant has vehementlycontended that the learned Family Court has not considered theapplicant's earning capacity in its proper perspective and erred inawarding maintenance. The applicant is doing labour work, andtherefore, the amount of maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- granted isexorbitant, and the applicant is unable to pay the same to therespondents. Consequently, he urged the modification of the order.7.During the argument, he also tendered an order dated02-04-2025, passed by this court in Criminal Writ Petition No.451/2025. He submitted that this court has directed the applicant todeposit Rs. 6,000/- per month in aggregate in the trial court untilfurther orders. He further submitted that he has complied with theorder and, therefore, canvassed that the impugned order is requiredto be modified.8.On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident thatthe applicant is a PhD holder and was working in the Maulana Azad3 of 7 (4)908crirevapln150.25.odtCollege. Now he is doing the work of property dealing, selling andpurchasing the old vehicle, and getting an income of Rs. 15,000/-. Italso appears that he possessed 25-R irrigated land in Gut No.237,Niklaj, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Beed. He also has a storied building, andthe ground floor and first floor have been given on rent and arereceiving rent of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Except for a mere denial inreply, the applicant has not adduced any evidence to rebut theevidence adduced by respondent No.1. The evidence above itselfindicates that the applicant has sufficient means of income.9.Having considered the said facts, the learned Judge, inpara No. 20, discussed those facts in detail. After considering themaintenance granted under Section 12 of the DV Act, the learnedJudge granted maintenance to the respondents.10.Besides, the applicant has failed to adduce cogent andreliable evidence that he is doing labour work. Therefore, I do notfind any substance in that regard. On the other hand, a judicial notecan be taken that the applicant, being a PhD holder, is able-bodiedand capable of earning. The applicant has not disputed that he is aPhD holder.11.Moreover, the learned advocate for the applicant failedto point out that respondent No. 1 has sufficient means of income orthat the applicant does not have sufficient means of income to4 of 7 (5)908crirevapln150.25.odtmaintain the respondents. On the contrary, it appears that theapplicant holds a three-story building, agricultural land in Gut No.237, and a business dealing with property and selling and purchasingold vehicles, which shows that the applicant has sufficient income tomaintain the respondents.12.On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, itappears that in Para No. 20, the learned Judge has discussed in detailthe income of the applicant and held that the applicant has sufficientmeans to pay the maintenance to the respondents as stated above. Infact, it appears that the order of the learned Judge is based on theevidence on record. However, the applicant failed to point out that hedoes not have sufficient means to maintain the respondents orfindings given by the learned Judge are illegal or perverse to interferein the revisional jurisdiction.13. It is pertinent to note that Section 125 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is a social welfare provision, which must besubjected to an extensive beneficial concern, and this understandinghas been extended to maintenance. Similarly, it must be borne inmind that the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is not a benefit received by the wife and daughterbut rather a legal and moral duty the husband owes to maintain hiswife and daughter. Undoubtedly, the wife and daughter do not reside5 of 7 (6)908crirevapln150.25.odtwith the husband, and the husband does not pay them anything fortheir maintenance. This itself is sufficient to grant maintenance tothem.14.Furthermore, it is needless to say that the order of thelearned judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptiblethat order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, the order is based on theproper appreciation of evidence. It is pertinent to note that it is theapplicant-husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children. Hecannot plead that he is unable to maintain them due to financialconstraints as long as he is capable of earning. Moreover, judicialnote can be taken that there are rises in essential commodities andtherefore, the maintenance amount granted to the respondentsappears to be too meagre to satisfy their daily needs. Thus, onperusal of the record and impugned order, it seems that the applicantfailed to maintain the respondents. Consequently, the order passed bythe learned Judge is just and proper. Hence, I do not find anysubstance in the contention of the learned advocate for the applicantthat the learned Judge has erred in determining the maintenanceamount. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugnedjudgment and order dated 08-10-2024 in revisional jurisdiction. Thecriminal revision application being devoid of merits, standsdismissed. No order as to costs.6 of 7
Decision
(7)908crirevapln150.25.odt15.Inform the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad.16.In view of the dismissal of the criminal revisionapplication, the criminal application, if any, stands disposed of. [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]VishalK/908crirevapln150.25.odt7 of 7