Sau. Sangeeta W/O Rupesh ... vs Shri. Rupesh S/O Ramesh Khandekar
2017 Latest Caselaw 8955 Bom

                                                                                              SPL.SINGLE.CRI.REV.55.15
                                                                       1


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

                                         CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 55/2015

            Sau.Sangeeta w/o Rupesh Khandekar
            Sangeeta D/o Mukundrao Zodape
            Aged about 31 years, occu: NIL
            R/o C/o Mukundraoji Zodape
            Plot No.786,
            Near Chandramani Pali Bouddha vihar
            Buddhanagar, Nagpur-17.                                                                           .. PETITIONER


                        versus

            Shri Rupesh s/o Ramesh Khandekar
            Aged about 38 years, occu: Taxi owner & Driver
            R/o C/o Rukhmabai Gajbhiye
            Rajapth Bus Stop, Rajapeth
            Hudkeshwar Road,
            Near Bhalchandra Kirana Stores, Nagpur
            (Police Station, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur)                                                              ... RESPONDENT

...............................................................................................................................................
            Shri H.N. Bhondge, Advocate for the applicant / petitioner
            Shri N. B. Bargat, Advocate for respondent-State
................................................................................................................................................

                                                                           CORAM: MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.
                                                                           DATED : 22.11.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT: 


            The petitioner-wife has preferred the instant Revision, being aggrieved by the

judgment and order dated 20.1.2015 delivered by the learned Judge, Family Court No.

4, in Petition No. E-98/2012 thereby dismissing the petition under section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.




       ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:17:08 :::
                                                            SPL.SINGLE.CRI.REV.55.15
                                            2


2.              The petitioner married with respondent on 19.3.2001, according to the

Buddhist customs and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, they are blessed with as

many as three children. Presently, the three children are residing with the respondent-

husband. The petitioner-wife is residing separately from the respondent-husband since

November 2010, on the ground that the husband used to ill-treat her. The wife filed a

petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said petition, consent terms came to be

filed between the the petitioner and the respondent. Those consent terms were

withdrawn subsequently by the petitioner-wife. The learned Judge of the Family Court,

after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition filed by petitioner-wife for maintenance,

as mentioned supra.



3.              Shri H.N. Bhondge, learned Advocate for the petitioner-wife contended

that the learned Judge of the Family Court has relied upon the consent terms which

were subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner-wife, and has come to the conclusion

that since the wife is residing separately from the respondent-husband as per the

consent terms and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance.



4.              Shri N B Bargat, learned Advocate for the respondent has supported the

order of the Court below and contended that the Family Court has rightly passed the

order as the petitioner-wife has withdrawn the company of the respondent since 2010

and till today, she is living her life without maintenance.




     ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017                             ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:17:08 :::
                                                             SPL.SINGLE.CRI.REV.55.15
                                              3


5.                 After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the the impugned

judgment, it is noticed that the learned Judge has relied upon the consent terms which

were subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner and has erroneously come to the

conclusion that both the parties had decided to break the marital tie and have further

decided the question about maintenance to be paid to the wife.



6.                 In view of the fact that the consent terms were already withdrawn by the

petitioner-wife,       the Family Court should not have come to the conclusion that the

issue in respect of maintenance has been decided mutually by the parties. In that

view of the matter, the Petition is remitted back to the Family Court, Nagpur, to decide

the issue of maintenance, on merits and in accordance with law. Hence the following

order :-

                                         ORDER

(I) The judgment and order dated 20.1.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family

Court No.4, Nagpur, in Petition No. E-98/2012, is set aside.

(ii) The matter is remitted back to the Family Court, Nagpur which shall decide the

issue of maintenance on its own merit, within a period of three months from today.

(iii) With the above directions, Revision stands disposed of.

JUDGE sahare