Prabhakar Govindrao Lekurwale vs Anita @ Mona W/O Prabhakar ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3540 Bom

Judgment

                                                                  revn154.15 47

                                       1

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

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO.154 of 2015

Prabhakar Govindrao Lekurwale,
Aged 40 years, occupation
agriculturist, 
resident of Deoli (Sawangi), Near
Gajanan Temple, Amgaon Deoli,
Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur.                 ..... Applicant.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

1. Anita @ Mona w/o Prabhakar
Lekurwale, aged 37 years,
occupation Nil.

2.  Pihu @ Twinkle d/o Prabhakar
Lekurwale, aged about 1 year,
occupation Nil through her 
natural guardian mother i.e. 
petitioner no.1.

Both resident of c/o Shri
Namdeoraoji Bachale, Plot No.
352, Omnagar, Sakkardara,
Nagpur, District Nagpur.                 ..... Non-applicants.

==============================================================
           Ms Varsha Wasu, Counsel for the applicant.
           Shri R.R. Prajapati, Counsel for the respondents.
==============================================================


                                                                         .....2/-




 ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:23:57 :::
 Judgment

                                                                  revn154.15 47

                                    2



                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE     : JUNE 22, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.              Rule.     Rule   is  made  returnable  forthwith.  Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel Ms Varsha Wasu for the

applicant and learned counsel Shri R.R. Prajapati for the non-

applicants.

2. By the present revision, the applicant is

challenging judgment and order passed by learned Judge,

Family Court No.3, Nagpur dated 29.10.2015 in Petition No.E-

127 of 2014 by which learned Judge has allowed the

application filed on behalf of non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 wife

and daughter of the present applicant under Section 125 of

the Criminal Procedure Code and granted maintenance to the

tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to wife and Rs.4,000/- per month

to daughter from the date of order.

.....3/-

Judgment

revn154.15 47

3. According to learned counsel Ms Wavu for the

applicant, the applicant is a poor person and belongs to

family below the poverty line. She, therefore, submits that

though the applicant is ready to pay maintenance, amount is

in excess and, therefore, she prays that the amount of

maintenance be scaled down.

4. Record shows that the present applicant has

obtained two loans from the Bank to the extent of Rs.1.00 Lac

and Rs.2,50,000/-. According learned counsel Ms Wasu for the

applicant, those loans were required to be obtained from the

Bank for marriage of his sister. It is an admitted position that

the applicant is having 1.20 Hectares of land which is an

irrigated one. Further, he is also a member of Krushi

Utpanna Bazar Samity. Learned Judge of the Court below

has considered all these aspect, in my view, in correct

perspective and has correctly recorded the finding of fact.

.....4/-

Judgment

revn154.15 47

Further, wife was required to file an application

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed

by the Family Court. Learned counsel submits that in fact the

decree of divorce was granted by this Court in favour of the

husband and which is challenged before the Honourable Apex

Court and the matter is subjudice before the Honourable

Apex Court.

5. Be that as it may, I am of the view that the amount

of maintenance, as granted by learned Judge of the Court

below in favour of wife and daughter, cannot be said to be an

excessive one, looking to the status of the applicant in society.

6. In that view of the matter, the criminal revision

application is dismissed. Rules is discharged.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-