Anusaya Wd/O Dhiraj Gujre vs Devkabai Wd/O Narayan Gujre
2017 Latest Caselaw 1879 Bom

        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.

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

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

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