Dharampal S/O Tulshidas Borkar vs Mayabai W/O Dharampal Borkar And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4894 Bom

Judgment

                                                                           apl447.15 26

                                          1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

         CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.447 OF 2015

Dharampal s/o Tulshidas Borkar,
Aged about 51 years, Occupation Fair
Price Shop, R/o Mundipar, Tahsil and 
District Gondia.                                                   ..... Applicant.

                                 ::   VERSUS   ::

1.  Mayabai w/o Dharampal Borkar,
Aged about 37 years, Occupation Nil,

2.  Ankit s/o Dharampal Borkar,
Aged about 18 years, Occupation Nil.

Both r/o Shastriward Gondia,
Tahsil and District Gondia.                        ..... Non-applicants.

================================================================
           Shri I.S. Charlewar, Counsel for the applicant.
           Shri V.R. Borkar, Counsel for the non-applicants.
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE    : JULY 21, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

.....2/-

Judgment

apl447.15 26

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application is moved by

applicant/husband challenging judgment and order passed by

learned Sessions Judge at Gondia dated 11.9.2014 in Criminal

Revision No.99 of 2013 by which learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the criminal revision filed on behalf of

applicant/husband and thereby confirmed judgment and

order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at

Gondia dated 21.9.2013 in Misc. Criminal Application No.239 of

2012 enhancing maintenance in favour of non-applicant

No.1/wife from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,500/- and non-applicant

No.2/son from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/-.

3. Initially, proceedings were filed by the non-

applicants under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure against present applicant/husband. The

maintenance was granted by learned Judicial Magistrate First

.....3/-

Judgment

apl447.15 26

Class in the year 2002 and amount of Rs.1,000/- was granted by

way of maintenance in favour of non-applicant No.1/wife and

Rs.500/- in favour of non-applicant No.2/son. The said order of

granting maintenance was not challenged by present

applicant/husband. Thus, relationship and all other relevant

aspects for deciding application under Section 125 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure attained finality.

4. After a period of 12 years, application under

Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by

the non-applicants for enhancement of maintenance. The said

application was allowed and learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class at Gondia granted maintenance to non-applicant

No.1/wife to the tune of Rs.2,500/- and non-applicant No.2/son

to the tune of Rs.1,500/-.

5. It is not in dispute, as it could be seen from

paragraph No.7 of judgment and order passed by learned

.....4/-

Judgment

apl447.15 26

Sessions Judge at Gondia, that present applicant/husband is

running Grocery Shop, Fair Price Shop, and is also having an

agricultural land. All documents showing husband having

Grocery Shop, Fair Price Shop, and having agricultural land

are filed on record by present applicant/husband himself.

6. Looking to aforesaid aspects, in my view, both the

Courts below have not committed any mistake in enhancing

maintenance from the earlier amount. Hence, no case is made

out for interference. The criminal application is rejected.

7. It was pointed out before this Court that during

the pendency of proceedings, non-applicant No.2 Ankit s/o

Dharampal Borkar has attained majority. Therefore, non-

applicant No.2 will be entitled to receive enhanced

maintenance, till the date he has attained majority.

8. Learned counsel Shri I.S. Charlewar for the

applicant/husband submits that in view of order passed by

.....5/-

Judgment

apl447.15 26

this Court, Rs.20,000/- were deposited by present

applicant/husband in this Court and the said amount is

already withdrawn by the present non-applicants. While

determining arrears of maintenance amount, the competent

Court should adjust amount of Rs.20,000/-.

9. With this, the criminal application is rejected and

disposed of. Rule is discharged. No costs.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-