J-cwp1016.15.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.1016 OF 2015
Anusaya wd/o. Dhiraj Gujre,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. C/o. Pratap Tembre,
Sawargaon (Barder), Tq. And Distt. Washim,
At Present residing c/o. House of
Gopal Shinde, Shinde Nagar,
Washim Road, behind Petrol Pump,
Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
Devkabai wd/o. Narayan Gujre,
Aged about 75 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Near Mangaldham,
Mangrulpir, Tq. Mangrulpir,
Distt. Washim. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. Pranita P. Chobe, Appointed Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th DATE : 24 APRIL, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent.
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 23:56:21 :::
J-cwp1016.15.odt 2/4
4. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.45/2013 on 28 th July, 2015. The Criminal Revision Application was filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 30.11.2010, whereby the learned Magistrate recalled the order of monthly maintenance granted to the respondent by him at the rate of Rs.750/-. The learned Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that even though the petitioner was getting family pension of Rs.3,000/- per month after the death of her husband, who was the son of the respondent, the respondent was not entitled to receive any share in the family pension unless, she applied to the competent authority for receiving her share in the same. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thought that very concept of family pension denoted that the pension amount was meant for all those members, who we part of family of the deceased and the mother of the deceased son certainly were a part of the family of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that here is a case where the evidence shows that the respondent is having three sons surviving today, all of whom are working and in a position to support her financially also. But, this factor has not been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. She submits that the petitioner has sons to take care of and therefore, if she is made to pay maintenance amount of Rs.600/- per month to the respondent, the educational and other needs ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 23:56:21 ::: J-cwp1016.15.odt 3/4 of her sons as well as her own would suffer.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not in dispute that presently the respondent is having only two sons, as the third son Ratan expired on 19 th May, 2015. Dhiraj, the fourth son who was the husband of the petitioner already expired on 10 th May, 2002 and as the petitioner is getting family pension of Rs.3,000/- after the death of Dhiraj, the petitioner also has a responsibility to contribute her share to some extent towards maintenance of the respondent, so submits learned counsel for the respondent. She also submits that there is no illegality patently committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
7. On going through the impugned order and the copies of the depositions filed on record, I find that there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is merit in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent.
8. Presently, there are only two surviving sons of the respondent and it appears that both of them are earning their livelihood by doing sundry jobs and labour work. One son Vitthal is in the own job of painting and the other one Sharad, is a labourer. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Vitthal is owner of a painting shop and earns handsomely, no specific evidence in this regard has been adduced by the petitioner. Sharad is a labourer, about whose income also there is no specific evidence available on record. In these circumstances, the Additional Sessions Judge has calculated share of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 23:56:21 ::: J-cwp1016.15.odt 4/4 petitioner towards maintenance of the respondent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month and I do not see any patent illegality or perversity having been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in adopting such an approach.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to me the admissions given by respondent that on and off she keeps receiving certain amount under Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. The admissions in this regard are indeed there on record. But, they only show that the amounts that the respondent is getting under this scheme are not on regular basis and they are of varying nature, from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.400/-. These amounts, one has to say in present days of inflation, would not be sufficient by themselves for an aged persons and the widow like respondent to make both ends meet. In this view of the matter, I do not see any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition stands dismissed.
10. Rule is discharged.
11. The remuneration of the appointed Advocate for the respondent is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 23:56:21 :::