Jayant S/O. Bhaduji Wasnik vs Smt. Swanalata W/O. Jayant Wasnik
2017 Latest Caselaw 7686 Bom

                                                    1                      revn191.16.odt

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

                     CRIMINAL REVISION NO.191/2016

      Jayant s/o Bhaduji Wasnik,
      aged 42 y ears, Occ. Labourer,
      r/o Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, 
      Dharampeth, Nagpur.                                    .....APPLICANT

                               ...V E R S U S...

      Smt. Swarnalata w/o Jayant Wasnik,
      aged 36 years, Occ. Household, 
      r/o Saraswatinagar, c/o Smt. Kamlabai
      Bodhele, Near Shiv Mandir, Misal Layout,
      Nagpur, Post Jaripatka, Nagpur.       ...NON APPLICANT

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. S. G. Karmarkar, Advocate for applicant.
 Mr. S. T. Dhurvey, Advocate for non applicant. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 28.09.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant is original non applicant in the proceeding

bearing Petition No.E-296/2014, which is decided by the learned

Judge, Family Court No.3, Nagpur dated 22.08.2016.

As per the impugned order, the present applicant was

directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the present

2 revn191.16.odt

non applicant towards maintenance from the date of order i.e. from

22.08.2016.

3. Marriage between the applicant and non applicant was

solemnized on 25.11.2012 at Gurunanak Bhavan, Nagpur. Relations

between the parties are not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the

present non applicant is only a housewife. The submission on the

part of the learned counsel for the applicant is that proper

opportunity was not granted to the present applicant. Therefore, the

applicant was unable to present his case properly before the learned

Judge, Family Court. Therefore, the present revision is required to

be allowed and the matter is required to be remanded back for giving

an opportunity to the applicant.

4. Mr. Dhurve, learned counsel for the non applicant invited

my attention to page no. 11 of the compilation which shows that on

02.12.2014, the present applicant who was non applicant before the

Family Court gave an undertaking before the learned Judge of the

Family Court that he will clear off all interim maintenance amount

before closing the evidence from the side of the present non

applicant/original petitioner. In spite of the said undertaking given

by the present applicant, the amount of arrears were not cleared off

3 revn191.16.odt

by the non applicant is the statement of the learned counsel for the

non applicant. Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the applicant

submitted that the applicant has given the said amount to his earlier

Advocate. However his earlier Advocate has failed to deposit the

said amount. But fact remains that as per the undertaking given by

present applicant on 02.12.2014, he has failed to deposit and clear

off all the arrears of maintenance amount. It is open for the present

applicant to take appropriate steps against his earlier advocate if

really he had handed over the amount of maintenance to him.

5. The order dated 02.05.2016 made by the learned Judge

Family Court below Exh.-1 shows that the applicant was absent and

despite the sufficient opportunity, he failed to lead the evidence. The

observation shows that in spite of sufficient opportunities granted to

the applicant, it is the applicant who has failed to avail the

opportunities given to him. The learned counsel for the applicant

could not point out anything from the record to show that the

applicant was present before the Family Court. After the applicant

chose not to contest the matter voluntarily despite the chances given

to him by the learned Judge of the Family Court, he should be

thankful to himself. It is very easy before the higher courts to make

allegations against the earlier Advocate without there being anything

4 revn191.16.odt

on record. This tendency of the litigants of making reckless

allegations behind the back of an Advocate and then claiming relief

from the Court, has to be curbed.

6. The learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly

considered the available evidence on record and has rightly granted

the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- in favour of the present non applicant.

No case is made out for interference by the applicant.

In the backdrop of the above discussions, it is clear that

the applicant himself was responsible for not participating in the

proceeding. Not only that he has failed to abide by his own

undertaking given before the learned Judge, Family Court. Hence

the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The revision application is

therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

kahale