Bombay High Court
Raghav Shankar Bais (Bayaskar) vs Sau. Kanchan Raghav Bais And ... on 20 November, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
45-J-REVN-11-17 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO.11 OF 2017
Raghav Shankar Bais (Bayaskar)
aged 25 years, R/o Indrayani
Matimand School, Jatharpeth,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola ... Applicant.
-vs-
1. Kanchan Raghav Bais (Bayaskar)
aged 22 years, Occ. Household.
2. Riddhi Raghav Bais (Bayaskar)
aged 2 years, being minor, through
her natural guardian/mother N.A. No.1.
Both R/o Indrayani
Matimand School, Jatharpeth,
Akola. ... Non-applicants.
Shri R. S. Kurekar, Advocate for applicants.
Shri R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for non-applicants.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : November 20, 2017
Oral Judgment :
Admit.
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
Order dated 11/05/2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Akola directing the payment of maintenance of an amount of
Rs.2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.1200/- per month to
the non-applicant No.2 is under challenge.
45-J-REVN-11-17 2/4
2. The non-applicants herein had filed proceedings under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of maintenance.
In the application it was stated that the applicant herein was working in a
private Hospital and had also given two rooms on rent. He was having
capacity to maintain the non-applicants herein but was not doing so. It was
prayed that an amount of Rs.3000/- each be awarded to the non-applicants.
No reply was filed on behalf of the present applicant. The non-applicants led
evidence and on the basis of that evidence, the impugned order came to be
passed.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that merely on
the basis of affidavit filed by the non-applicant No.1 the impugned order has
been passed. No evidence was led to indicate the actual amount of income of
the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant could not contest the
proceedings before the trial Court as a result of which prejudice has been
caused to him. It is further submitted that part of the amount of arrears has
already been cleared.
4. The learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that the
applicant himself is responsible for failure to contest the proceedings and for
failure to lead evidence. The evidence led by non-applicant No.1 was not
controverted and hence the impugned order does not deserve to be
45-J-REVN-11-17 3/4
interfered with.
5. After hearing the respective counsel and after perusing the
documents placed on record, I find that the impugned order has been passed
by accepting the non-controverted evidence of non-applicant No.1. Though
it is true that the applicant failed to lead evidence, the entire case of the non-
applicants has been accepted. For determining a reasonable amount of
maintenance, in the facts of the case one opportunity deserves to be given to
the applicant to contest the proceedings on merit.
6. While remanding the proceedings an interim arrangement
without prejudice to the rights of the parties would have to be directed.
Accordingly, the following order would serve the ends of justice :
(i) The applicant shall pay maintenance to the non-applicants as per
the order dated 11/05/2015 till the month of November 2017.
(ii) The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 11/12/2017
and the applicant shall file his reply within the period of fifteen
days from the said date of appearance.
(iii) During pendency of proceedings before the Family court, the
applicant shall pay interim monthly maintenance @ Rs.1200/- for
each of the non-applicants. This interim maintenance shall be
payable from December 2017. It is made clear that this interim
45-J-REVN-11-17 4/4
arrangement is without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
(iv) The Family court shall decide the proceedings expeditiously on
their own merits without being influenced by this order.
(v) The applicant shall also clear all the arrears of maintenance
within period of four weeks from today. Revision application is
allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Asmita
