High Court

Legal Reasoning

(1)905crirevapln252.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD905 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 2025MAHENDRA DIPAJI AHIRE….Applicant VERSUSMEERA MAHENDRA AHIRE AND ANOTHER…..RespondentMr. A. S. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant CORAM:ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE:26th SEPTEMBER, 2025PER COURT :1. The applicant-husband/original respondent haspreferred this revision challenging the judgment and order dated 07-05-2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaonin Criminal Appeal No.38/2022, whereby confirmed the order passedby the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kopargaonwhereby granted maintenance to the respondents/original applicantNos. 1 and 3 respectively of Rs.4000/- each under section 20(1)(D)and further granted an amount of Rs.2000/- towards payment ofrent. The learned Magistrate also granted compensation ofRs.50,000/- under Section 22. [Hereinafter the parties are referred toas per their designation in the trial court].2.Heard the learned advocate for the applicant. Perused1 of 7 (2)905crirevapln252.25the judgments and orders and record.3.At the outset, it appears that the applicants being wifeand daughter have filed an application under Sections 12, 19, 20(3),20(k) and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act’] against the respondent-husband for seeking various reliefs under the said DV Act. Therespondent appeared in the matter and filed his say/reply to theapplication and urged for rejection of the application. Afterconsidering the evidence on record the learned Magistrate videjudgment and order dated 26-05-2022 allowed the applicationholding that the applicants have proved that the respondent hascommitted domestic violence and therefore, the applicants areentitled for protection and maintenance.4.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order therespondent has preferred the appeal before the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Kopargaon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,Kopargaon after considering the material on record confirmed theorder passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Assuch the respondent (the applicant herein) has preferred thiscriminal revision application.5.It is pertinent to note that the respondent is notdisputing that applicant No.1 is his wife and applicant No.2 is his2 of 7 (3)905crirevapln252.25daughter. The respondent adduced the evidence. However, despitegranting an opportunity, the respondent failed to adduce theevidence. Therefore, evidence close order was passed below Exh.1and the learned trial court after considering unchallenged evidence ofthe applicant passed the judgment and order.6.It also appears from the para No. 8 of the judgmentpassed by the learned Magistrate that the respondent by filing theapplication at Exh.8 raised the objection that this court has nojurisdiction to deal with the matter and vehemently contested thesaid application. The learned Magistrate after considering thecontentions, rejected the said application holding that he hasjurisdiction to entertain the matter. Thereafter, the respondentremained absent and did not challenge or deny testimony of theapplicants and her witness and therefore, their testimony remainedchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the same.7.Similarly, the learned Magistrate after discussion, in paraNos. 9 and 10 has categorically held that the applicants proved thatthe respondent has committed domestic violence against her andtherefore, the applicants are entitled for protection order andaccordingly recorded the findings.8.Similarly, next point is that for how much maintenanceor amount to pay the rent, the applicants are entitled. The learned3 of 7 (4)905crirevapln252.25Judge has discussed in para Nos. 10 to 15 and held that theapplicants are entitled for maintenance of Rs.4000/- and an amountof Rs.2000/- towards payment of rent.9.In para No. 14, the learned Magistrate has observed thatthe respondent was in employment with the Central Railway,Matunga as a Fitter and his salary was Rs.40,000/- per month. Saidfacts has not denied or disputed by the respondent in his reply to theapplication. Therefore, being unchallenged pleadings as well asevidence of the applicants, the learned Judge held that therespondent has sufficient means of income to pay the maintenance tothe applicants and accordingly granted the maintenance and theamount of rent as stated above. While dealing with the entitlement ofthe compensation as per section 22, the learned Judge observed thatthe respondent has not provided anything to the applicants for theirlivelihood and therefore, the applicants are entitled for thecompensation of Rs.50,000/-.10.The learned advocate fore the applicant vehementlycontended that during pendency of the appeal, the applicant wasretired on 30-07-2023. However, he failed to bring those facts onrecord to modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate.Therefore, he urged for permitting the applicant to file properproceeding before the learned Magistrate for modification of the4 of 7 (5)905crirevapln252.25impugned judgment and order. However, he failed to point out fromthe provision of the DV Act about having remedy to him ascontemplated under Section 127 of the Cr. P. C. When proceeding wasconcluded till that period the applicant was in service and therefore,in revisional jurisdiction scope is very limited whether the impugnedjudgment and order is legal or not has to be considered. 11.Apart from that here in stead of providing themaintenance and rent amount to the applicants, the respondentchallenged the said order in appeal before the court and therebydragged the respondent who has no source of income to this courtand contest the matter. Therefore, in my view the applicants areentitled for compensation as determined by the learned Magistrate.12.The learned Additional Sessions Judge in para Nos. 9 to13 has discussed in detailed about the entitlement of themaintenance amount, payment of rent and compensation as held thatthe learned Magistrate has not committed any error in partlyallowing the application. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal andconfirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is pertinentto note that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wifeand children. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable tomaintain them due to financial constraint as long as he is capable ofearning. Furthermore, the judicial note can be taken that there are5 of 7 (6)905crirevapln252.25rises in the essential commodities and therefore, the maintenanceamount granted to the applicants appears to be too meagre to satisfytheir daily needs. 13.On perusal of the impugned judgments and orders, itappears that the learned Magistrate and the first appellate court onproper appreciation of evidence on record passed the orders.However, the respondent failed to point out that the said orders aremanifestly perverse or improper. Similarly, the respondent failed topoint out that he does not have sufficient means to maintain theapplicants or the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate as wellas the learned appellate court are illegal or perverse to interfere inthe impugned orders. In view of above discussion, it is evident thatthe respondent failed to maintain the applicants when he hassufficient means to maintain them. Consequently, the order passed bythe learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge are just and proper. Therefore, I do not find anysubstance in the contention of the learned advocate for the applicant(herein) in that regard to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. As aresult, the criminal revision application being devoid of merits, standsdismissed. No order as to costs.14.Further, I do not find substance in his contentionpermitting the applicant to file appropriate application before the6 of 7 (7)905crirevapln252.25learned Magistrate. However, it is made clear that if the applicant isentitled to file any application in accordance with law, he is at libertyto file the same. [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]VishalK/905crirevapln252.257 of 7