Bombay High Court
Dilip Deorao Wadibhasme vs Smt. Vandana W/O. Dilip ... on 17 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn161.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.161/2016
Dilip Deorao Wadibhasme,
aged 45 years, Occ. Labour,
r/o Jawahar Nagar Petrol Pumb
(Thana), Tq. Dist. Bhandara (MS)
P. S. Bhandara. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
Smt. Vandana w/o Dilip Wadibhasme,
aged 44 years, Occ. Public Prosecutor,
r/o c/o Purushottam Thote's House,
Darshan Colony, Nandanwan,
Nagpur-24, P. S. Nandanwan, Nagpur. ...NON APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. D. Thakur, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. M. Y. Wadotkar, Advocate for non applicant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 17.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. By the present revision, the applicant is challenging the
order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2,
Nagpur below Exh.-66 dated 27.06.2016 in Petition ER
No.32/2010 by which the applicant herein sought a direction from
2 revn161.16.odt
the Court below to issue directions to the non applicant to refund
an amount of Rs.1,60,371/- from Vainganga Krishna Gramin
Bank, Thana, Tq. Dist. Bhandara.
3. It is not in dispute that in view of the order passed in
Revision No.17/2017, the non applicant and her son were granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month from the date
Petition No.E-165/2014 under the provisions of Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. The non applicant was required to file recovery
proceedings since the amount of Rs.1,93,000/- remained to be
unpaid. The applicant therefore was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment. However, later on the amount was deposited. The
said amount was due till 04.01.2010
4. The non applicant was required to file application Exh.-
20 claiming the due amount of Rs. 2,12,000/- till 06.01.2011. The
details were given in the said application about the amount due
and the amount deposited. The said application was allowed. The
applicant was imprisoned for three months for non payment of
Rs.2,50,000/-. The order impugned shows that the non applicant-
wife was required to file petition E-26/2012 for recovery of
3 revn161.16.odt
Rs.36,000/- for the period from 06.01.2011 to 03.01.2012 and
petition ER-74/2013 for recovery of Rs.36,000/- for the period
from 16.02.2012 to 16.02.2013. Though these proceedings were
dismissed in default, the right of recovery of maintenance amount
cannot be said to be extinguished. The order granting
maintenance still holds the field. Even the application under
Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for modification is also filed and the same is
still pending.
5. The learned Court below while deciding the application
Exh.-66 found that till the date the applicant has paid
Rs.2,53,661/- to the wife and the said amount was paid towards
arrears of maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court
noticed that no excess amount was paid. Therefore, in my view,
the court below has rightly rejected the application warranting no
interference.
In that view of the matter, the revision application is
dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
