1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2016.
APPLICANT: Shankarrao Bhopatrao Kumbhalkar,
aged about 67 years, Occu: Agrist, R/o
Anjangaon Bari, Amravati, Tq. and
Distt.Amravati.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. Sau. Vatsala w/o Shankarrao Kumbhalkar,
aged about 53 years, Occu: Household,
2. Sarita Shankarrao Kumbhalkar,
aged about 30 years, Occu: Not known.
3. Priya Shankarrao Kumbhalkar,
aged about 30 years, Occu: Not known.
Respondent nos.1 to 3 all are resident of
C/o Jyoti Makeshwar, Ram Mohan Nagar,
Near Pathyaputak Mandal, Amravati, Tq.
and Distt.Amravati.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.V.S.Giramkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Smt.S.W.Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: P.N.DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 12th APRIL, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel of both parties.
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:48 ::: 2
2. This Criminal Revision takes exception to the judgment and order dated 7th April, 2015 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Amravati in Petition No.E-185 of 2012, thereby allowing application for grant of enhancement of maintenance filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by respondent no.1/wife and respondent nos.2 and 3, daughters. Admittedly, the amount which is enhanced is to the extent of Rs.2000/- per month to each of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband has contended that learned Family Court while passing impugned order has failed to consider fact of marriages of respondent nos.2 and 3 and as such erroneously held that they are entitled to maintenance and contended that impugned order be quashed and set aside sofaras grant of maintenance to respondent nos.2 and 3 is concerned.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, however, disputed said fact and has contended that respondent no.3 alone is married and thus, submitted that Revision be allowed by setting aside order granting maintenance to respondent no.3. ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:48 ::: 3
5. In the background of submissions advanced as aforesaid, it appears that initially amount of Rs.700/- per month to each of the respondents was granted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure towards maintenance. Thereafter said amount was enhanced by the Family Court from time to time and by impugned order it was enhanced to the extent of Rs.2000/- per month to be paid to each of the respondents.
6. It is the specific case of applicant/husband that he is not liable to pay maintenance to respondent nos.2 and 3 being married daughters and for that purpose learned counsel for the applicant has referred to copy of decree on record passed in Special Civil Suit No.97 of 2003 and has contended that amount of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid in said proceedings to respondent no.2 towards marriage expenses which fact established that respondent no.2 Sarita is married.
7. As regards issue of establishing marital status of respondent no.3 Priya is concerned, said fact is not disputed which is even otherwise established on the strength of marriage invitation card of said respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:48 ::: 4
8. In the light of above facts, on perusal of copy of decree on record at Exh.42 it appears that in a civil proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 Sarita against applicant, applicant in his capacity as her father appears to be directed to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- to said respondent towards her marriage expenses. From the facts of the Civil Suit initiated by respondent no.2 Sarita it was her case that applicant had neglected to maintain her since her childhood though had maintained her elder sister Ujwala who stayed with applicant and applicant arranged to perform her marriage in 2002. Another contention raised by respondent Sarita is that respondent no.1, her mother, is keeping ill-health and as such she needs support for her future life and therefore, she intends to marry. It is further contended that applicant is having grocery shop, irrigated land and also having licence of selling Kerosene and has thus claimed substantive amount for her marriage purpose and as such, amount of Rs.40,000/- is directed to be paid to respondent no.2 towards her marriage expenses.
9. Considering the fact as aforesaid and order granting Rs.40,000/- to respondent no.2, thus establishes that said amount is paid to her for the purpose of her marriage. However, this fact by no stretch of imagination establishes that respondent Sarita is ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:48 ::: 5 married.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant to a specific query has contended that no such facts could be brought on record during the evidence, as according to him same were instructed after impugned order granting enhancement of maintenance was passed.
11. Having considering facts as aforesaid and as from order dated 2nd September, 2016 it is noted that stay is operating in favour of applicant insofar as payment of Rs.2000/- per month to respondent nos.2 and 3 are concerned and though by the said order applicant was directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month from September, 2016 onwards to respondent no.1, he is stated to have not complied with the same. Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage submits that the applicant is in arrears of amount approximately to the extent of Rs.38000/- towards maintenance of respondent no.1 alone and since stay was operating in favour of applicant no such arrears in respect of respondent no.2 is deposited. In that view of the matter following order is passed.
Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 7th April, 2015 passed by the ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:48 ::: 6 Principal Judge, Family Court, Amravati in Petition No.E-185 of 2012 directing applicant to pay Rs.2000/- per month to each of the respondents is quashed and set aside sofar as it relates to respondent no.3.
Needless to say that applicant shall continue to pay maintenance to respondent nos.1 and 2 and shall make payment of arrears of maintenance whatsoever as per order passed on 2 nd September, 2016.
Applicant shall pay arrears of maintenance within a reasonable period not exceeding three months from today.
JUDGE.
chute ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:56:48 :::