High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- Cri.Revn.282.2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2023WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1129 OF 2024Sau. Seema W/o. Vijay Sonawane,Age : 38 years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Jalgaon Sapkale, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna.… ApplicantVersus1.Vijay S/o. Santukrao Sonawane,Age : 37 years, Occu. : Service (Teacher),Dnyaneshwar Vidya Mandir,Thakare Nagar, N-2 CIDCO, Aurangabad 2.Santukrao S/o. Paraji Sonawane,Age : 58 years, Occu. : Agril. and Pensioner, R/o. Manik Nagar (Bhavan), Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 3.Sindhubai W/o. Santukrao Sonawane,Age : 54 years, Occu. : Household,R/o. As above. 4.Rajendra Santukrao Sonawane,Age : 32 years, Occu. : Service,R/o. As above. 5.Dattatray Paraji Sonawane,Age : 47 years, Occu. : Agril., R/o. Jainpur Kothara,Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.6.Rukhmanbai W/o. Dattatray Sonawane,Age : 44 years, Occu. : Household,R/o. As Above. … Respondents.……Mr. Tushar C. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. P. Pande, Advocate for Respondents....… -2- Cri.Revn.282.2023 CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 5th MARCH, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 13th MARCH, 2025ORDER : 1.Revisionist a wife of respondent No.1 herein, is herebyquestioning order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5,Jalna dated 11.07.2023 in PWDVA Appeal No. 03 of 2021dismissing the appeal, questioning the legality, validity of judgmentand order dated 07.03.2015 passed passed by learned J.M.F.C.Bhokardan in Criminal M.A. No. 195 of 2010.FACTS IN BRIEF2.Present revisionist instituted Criminal M.A. No. 195 of2010 seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per monthunder section 12 of Domestic Violence Act 2005 and also set upprayers for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along withother reliefs of protection and rent etc.3.Above proceedings were contested by presentrespondents vide say Exh.36 denying contention and assertions ofin toto. Learned J.M.F.C. Bhokardan appreciated the oral anddocumentary evidence and by judgment and order dated07.03.2015 partly allowed the application granting maintenance to -3- Cri.Revn.282.2023the tune of Rs.3,000/- from the date of application and alsoawarded Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and also granted costof Rs.3,000/-. 4.Getting dissatisfied by the above order, revisionistpreferred PWDVA Appeal No.03 of 2021, which was againcontested by present respondents. Learned Additional SessionsJudge, Jalna appreciated the respective cases advanced by each ofthe side and did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgmentand order dated 07.03.2015 in Cri. M.A. No. 195 of 2010 andthereby dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the above, wife has preferredinstant revision under section 397 of Cr.P.C.SUBMISSIONS 5.Apart from placing written notes of arguments, learnedcounsel for revisionist would submit that, there was no disputeabout marital status of parties. That, because of cruelty andmaltreatment, revisionist was constrained to go and stay with herparents. That, husband apart from inflicting domestic violence,had neglected to maintain, and therefore, she was constrained toknock the doors of the court to seek maintenance at higher rent asdemanded quantum was not granted.
Legal Reasoning
-4- Cri.Revn.282.20236.Thrust of learned counsel for revisionist was thathusband earned salary of over a lakh rupees and had additionalagricultural income. In spite of placing 7/12 extract on record tothat extent, the same has not been considered by learnedAdditional Sessions Judge and hence impugned judgment andorder is sought to be set aside by allowing the revision and grantingmaintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month at least.7.Above application is strongly opposed by husbandsupporting the order of Appellate Court to be just and proper.8.Perused the papers. Admittedly, parties, who arehusband and wife, seem to have parted ways due to maritaldiscord. Learned J.M.F.C., Bhokardan, who was approached byrevisionist vide Criminal M.A. No. 195 of 2010 after issuing noticeto present respondent husband on claim set up by invoking section12 of D.V. Act, appreciated the respective cases by each of the sideand recorded the finding that there was domestic violence andbeing neglected, is entitled for maintenance and by recordingspecific finding as regards to point no.4 is concerned, observed thatmaintenance of Rs.10,000/- is sought, husband has admitted incross about receiving Rs.40,000/- by way of salary. Consequently, -5- Cri.Revn.282.2023learned trial court awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and alsodirected compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with costs andmaintenance was directed to be paid from the date of application.This order seems to be challenged by way of appeal bearing PWDVAAppeal No.03 of 2021. 9.Precisely two grounds are put-forth, firstly,agricultural income is not appreciated by learned trial court.Secondly, she is unemployed.10.After going through the impugned order, it is emergingthat, present applicant while instituting Cri. M.A. No.195 of 2010has also parallelly instituted proceeding bearing Cri.M.A. No. 166of 2011 wherein initially after granting Rs.3,000/-, in appeal saidquantum was enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, but present applicantapparently seems to have suppressed such proceedings whileinstituting both proceedings bearing Cri. M.A. No. 195 of 2010 aswell as while questioning the same before appellate court. There isdiscussion to this extent even by the appellate court. It ismandatory for party approaching to come with clean hands and todesist from withholding or suppressing material facts. Equitycomes to the rescue of only those, who set up genuine claims. -6- Cri.Revn.282.202311.On going through the papers and impugned orders, it isclear emerging that, husband received Rs.40,000/- by way ofsalary. Learned trial court has awarded total maintenance ofRs.8,000/- under various head. However, it does appear that inspite of setting up distinct agricultural income, no amount isgranted under said head. Learned counsel for applicant has invitedattention of this court to this aspect and he also invited attention tothe 7/12 extract of agricultural land standing in the name offather-in-law and distinct plea in the name of respondent husband.7/12 extract shows her husband’s personal holding. However,though it is not clear from the said 7/12 extract as to whether landis irrigated or not, definitely husband must be deriving someincome, but in absence of specific evidence about it, it would be justand equitable to award Rs.1,000/- towards said agriculturalincome. Hence, revisionist succeeds and the quantum ofmaintenance is required to be enhanced. Hence, I proceed to passthe following order :-ORDER(i)Criminal Revision Application is hereby partly allowed.(ii)The monthly maintenance granted by the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokardan in CriminalM.A. No.195 of 2010 and as confirmed by AdditionalSessions Judge, Jalna in PWDVA Appeal No.03 of 2021in favour of the applicant is modified as Rs.4,000/- per -7- Cri.Revn.282.2023month and the same shall be payable from the date offiling of the present Revision Application.(iii)It is clarified that there is no change in rest of the orderof the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokardan.(iv)Criminal Revision Application is disposed off in aboveterms.(v)Criminal Application No.1129 of 2024 is also disposedoff. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale