revn195.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2016
Sau. Archana wife of Mahesh Dhore,
aged about 39 years,
occupation - household work,
presently C/o Shri T. A.
Tathod [Patil], Ex. Tathod Mangal
Karyalaya/Tathod Niwas,
Amrut Nagar, behind Govt. Dairy,
Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola,
Police Station - Civil Lines,
Akola. ..... Applicant
Versus
Shri Mahesh son of Bhanudas
Dhore,
aged about 40 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Saptashringi Mandir,
Old CIDCO Houses,
Nashik,
Police Station - Nashik. ..... Non-applicant
*****
Mr. C. A.Joshi, Adv., for the Applicant.
Mr. Jaltare, Adv., for non-applicant.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 06th December, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT: ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 00:58:08 ::: revn195.16 2
01. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
02. The order dated 15th October, 2016 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court rejecting the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is under challenge.
03. The applicant and the non-applicant were married on 18th November, 2003. In the year 2004, a child was born. It appears that the relations between the parties thereafter were strained, resulting in the non-applicant filing proceedings for grant of divorce. The Family Court allowed that petition for divorce on 26th September, 2016. Thereafter, on 15th October, 2016, the Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance which order is challenged in this application.
04. It is not necessary to enter into the merits of the adjudication in view of the fact that the subsequent event, namely the decree for divorce being confirmed by this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 76 of 2016 vide judgment dated 20th July, 2017, is found to ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 00:58:08 ::: revn195.16 3 be a relevant factor. One of the grounds for refusing maintenance is that the present applicant was unsuccessful in proving harassment at the hands of the non-applicant. Be that as it may, I find that interest of justice would be served if the proceedings are remanded for fresh consideration in the light of aforesaid subsequent developments.
05. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
In view of subsequent developments, order dated 15th October, 2016 passed in Petition No. E-65 of 2014 is set aside. The proceedings are restored before the Family Court which shall decide the same afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings and also lead further evidence, if they so desire. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the findings recorded by the Family Court in the impugned order. Proceedings before Family Court are expedited.
06. Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau| ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 00:58:08 ::: revn195.16 4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 00:58:08 :::