Writ Petition No. 1833 of 2019 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the above, this Criminal Writ Petition isdismissed. However, in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved byany further order passed by the Courts below, he is at liberty totake recourse to appropriate proceedings. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
Judgment
*1* 912crwp1833o19IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2019SHIVAJI S/O. DNYANOBA KHAWANEVERSUSGEETA W/O. SHIVAJI KHAWANE...Shri Tripathi Manish P., Advocate for the Petitioner.... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 19 November 2025P. C. :-
Heard.
The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.07.2019passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Revision No.151/2017 thereby, confirming the orderdated 26.10.2017 passed by learned JMFC, Parbhani, in CriminalM.A. No.612/2014. By this order dated 26.10.2017, learnedJMFC was pleased to partly allow the said application andawarded monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/-.
When the instant petition was listed on 12.11.2025,this Court granted two weeks time to the learned advocate for the *2* 912crwp1833o19petitioner to work out this petition.
The record reveals that this petition was filed in theyear 2019 and it was never circulated and listed for all theseyears. The proceedings before learned JMFC under Section 125of the Code of Criminal Procedure were filed in the year 2014and the same were partly allowed on 26.10.2017 and the instantpetition is filed in the year 2019. There is no stay granted by this Court and as stated earlier, the petition was never circulated andlisted for hearing. During all these years, the parties are involvedin litigation against each other. The petitioner is not at all vigilantand alert in the proceedings. As such, this Court cannot come tohis aid, who is sleeping over his rights. In that view of thematter, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.
As far as merits of the matter are concerned, it hascome on record that marriage took place in 1999 and differencesstarted in 2011. During interregnum, the parties blessed with twochildren. However, the dispute between them started overagricultural land of the petitioner’s father-in-law. After analyzingevidence on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly observedthat the petitioner has neglected to maintain the wife. The *3* 912crwp1833o19petitioner has sufficient means to maintain the wife. Consideringsocial position of both the parties, learned JMFC has rightlyawarded maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month. Therefore, considering facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the viewthat both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugnedorders and no interference is called for in the same.
In view of the above, this Criminal Writ Petition isdismissed. However, in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved byany further order passed by the Courts below, he is at liberty totake recourse to appropriate proceedings. kps
( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.