Pralhad S/O Raghunath Waghmare vs Nanda W/O Pralhad Waghmare & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5065 Bom

                                                                               wp329.15
                                           -1-




                                                                             
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                     
                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 329 OF 2015



     Pralhad s/o Raghunath Waghmare




                                                    
     Age 48 years, Occ. Service
     R/o. Chilekhanwadi, Tal. Newasa
     District Ahmednagar                                      ...Petitioner

              versus




                                        
     1.       Sou. Nanda w/o Pralhad Waghmare
                             
              Age 43 years, Occ. Service

     2.       Sagar s/o Pralhad Waghmare
              Age 16 years, Occ. Student
                            
     3.       Pranjali d/o Pralhad Waghmare
              @ Pranjali w/o Balasaheb Pathare
              Age 23 years, Occ. Housewife
      


              All R/o. Chilekhanwadi, Tq. Newasa
              District Ahmednagar                             ...Respondents
   



                                            ...
                      Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh H.D.
                     Advocate for Respondents 1 and 3: Mr. D.A. Naik





                                           .....

                                                   CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 30th AUGUST, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at

admission stage.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.01.2015

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa in criminal

wp329.15

Revision application No. 29 of 2014, the original respondent husband

preferred present writ petition.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:-

On account of certain differences and matrimonial disputes

between the parties, respondent No.1 wife alongwith her children i.e.

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Misc. application No. 9 of 2010 before

the J.M.F.C. Newasa for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, Newasa by its judgment and order

dated 13.1.2011 partly allowed the said Misc. Application No. 9 of

2010 and directed the respondent husband to pay Rs.1000/- p.m. to

respondent wife and Rs.1500/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner husband has preferred

Criminal Revision application before the Sessions Court at Newasa

and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa by its impugned

order dated 20.1.2015 partly allowed the said criminal revision

application and thereby reduced the amount of maintenance granted

by the trial court to respondent No.1 wife from Rs.1000/- to Rs.800/-

and confirmed the order of grant of maintenance to respondent Nos.

2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.1500/- p.m. each. Being aggrieved to the

extent of maintenance granted to respondent-wife, the petitioner

husband has preferred this writ petition.

wp329.15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during

pendency of criminal revision application before the Additional

Sessions Judge Newasa, original applicant No.2 Pranjali got married

and she is thus cohabiting with her husband. The petitioner husband

is not liable to pay maintenance to his married daughter and it is for

her husband to take care of her. So far as grant of maintenance to

original applicant No.3-son Sagar is concerned, the petitioner

husband will not press present writ petition for grant of maintenance

to his son. Respondent No.1 wife is serving as Nurse in the Health

department and getting monthly salary. The petitioner husband is

also serving as teacher in private school on monthly salary. After

deductions, the petitioner husband is getting very less salary and

since respondent No.1 wife is getting salary, she is able to maintain

herself, and thus, the application seeking maintenance is liable to be

rejected in toto. Even the Additional Sessions Judge in para 8 of the

judgment has observed that respondent No.1 wife is getting more

monthly salary compared to the salary of petitioner husband.

Learned counsel submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge

in that view of the matter, should have rejected the application to the

extent of seeking maintenance by respondent No.1 wife.

5. Learned counsel for respondent wife submits that during

wp329.15

pendency of criminal revision application before the Additional

Sessions Judge, Newasa, original applicant No.2 Pranjali got

married and now she is cohabiting with her husband. Respondent

wife, after all deductions, is getting less salary compared to the

salary of the petitioner husband. Respondent No.1 wife is serving as

Arogya sevika whereas the petitioner husband is serving as a

teacher and he is confirmed employee. Learned Additional Sessions

Judge reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.1000/- to

Rs.800/- and in the given circumstances the same appears to be just

and reasonable. No interference is required in the impugned

judgment and order.

6. So far as respondent No.3 Pranjali is concerned, she got

married during pendency of criminal revision application before the

Sessions Court and as such she is not entitled for maintenance from

the petitioner. The petitioner husband has not challenged the grant

of maintenance to his son Sagar. It appears from the evidence and

observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the

petitioner husband after deductions, is getting Rs.8273/- as monthly

salary and respondent No.1 wife is also getting the same income or

even more than that. It also appears from the observations made by

the learned Judge of the trial court that the petitioner husband has

not produced any salary certificate before the trial court so as to

wp329.15

substantiate his contention that he is getting less salary after

deduction. The trial court has observed that even though certain

deductions are there, those deductions are not permanent in nature

and in due course the petitioner husband may get the salary as

prescribed for the teachers serving in private schools. However, it

appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the

income of respondent No.1 wife and accordingly reduced the

quantum of compensation from Rs.1000/- to Rs.800/-. I do not find

any fault in the said judgment and order passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge so far as grant of maintenance to

respondent wife is concerned. Original applicant No.2 Pranjali is

certainly not entitled for any maintenance, as during pendency of

proceeding before learned Additional Sessions Judge, she got

married. Thus, with this modification, writ petition can be disposed

of. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

I. Writ petitioner is hereby partly allowed.

II. The order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa in criminal revision application No. 29 of 2014 is modified in the following manner:-

"The application for grant of maintenance to applicant

wp329.15

No.2 Pranjali, d/o Pralhad Waghmare is hereby

rejected."

III. Rest of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa dated 20.1.2015 in criminal revision application No. 29 of 2014 stands confirmed.

IV. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                              ig                                 ( V. K. JADHAV, J.)

     rlj/