Bombay High Court
Shankarrao S/O Bhopatrao ... vs Sau. Vatsala W/O Shankarrao ... on 12 April, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
