Bombay High Court
Maheshwari W/O. Narendra ... vs Narendra Zamusao Sonbhadre on 25 January, 2018
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 REVN215.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2016
APPLICANT : 1] Maheshwari W/o Narendra Sonbhadre,
Aged about 38 years, Occu. --
2] Ku. Prajakta D/o Narendra Sonbhadre,
Aged about 8 years, Occu. Education,
Both R/o C/o Smt. Pushpa Haribhajan Sarve,
Post Shiva, Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT : Narendra Zamusao Sonbhadre,
Aged about 40 years, Occu. -
R/o Railway Station Road, Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J. D. Bastian, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. M. P. Kariya, Advocate for the non-applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 25, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2 REVN215.16.odt
2. Heard Mr. J. D. Bastian, the learned counsel for the
applicants and Mr. M. P. Kariya, the learned counsel for the non-
applicant.
3. Mr. Bastian, the learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has
committed an error in allowing Criminal Revision Application No.
14/2016, filed by the present non-applicant and has further erred in
reducing the quantum of maintenance granted to the applicants from
Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month. He submitted that
Rs.4,000/- per month is too insufficient for maintenance of the
applicants. He, therefore, submitted that the present revision
application be allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Katol, dated 04.12.2015 under Exh.13 in
Misc. Cri. Application No. 11/2013 be restored.
4. Per contra, Mr. Kariya, the learned counsel for the non-
applicant submitted that the order impugned cannot be termed as
an erroneous order, inasmuch as the applicants have not filed
anything on record to point out the income of the non-applicant. He
3 REVN215.16.odt
submitted that merely on the guess work, the income cannot be
determined. He, therefore, submitted that this revision application
be rejected.
5. It is not in dispute that the non-applicant is the husband
of applicant no.1 and father of applicant no.2 and also a new born
child Tikesh. Their marriage took place on 06.7.2008.
6. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance, since,
according to the applicants, the non-applicant has neglected the
applicants and is not taking any care and has not paid any
maintenance. The said application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is
registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 11/2013 and is pending
on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol. The non-
applicant, on being summoned, has filed his written statement to the
application. During the pendency of the application, for grant of
interim maintenance is filed by the present applicants. The said
application is at Exh.13 on the record of the learned Magistrate. The
learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties to the said application,
4 REVN215.16.odt
partly allowed the application and granted Rs.2,000/- per month by
way of interim maintenance from the date of filing of application for
interim maintenance i.e. 14.8.2015 to the each applicant and also to
the new born child Tikeshwar. Being dissatisfied with the said order,
the present non-applicant filed the revision application before the
Revisional Court. The revision was registered as Criminal Revision
Application No. 14/2016 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagpur on 21.9.2016 partly allowed the revision filed on behalf of
the non-applicant and thereby reduced the quantum of maintenance
from Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month.
7. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the
non-applicant is working in a private company. The said was their
case before the Revisional Court. It is to be noted that here no
document is filed on record to point out the service of the non-
applicant in a private company. On the contrary, it is the version of
the non-applicant that he is working as a daily labour.
8. It is to be noted that though the revision was partly
allowed by the learned Sessions Court, the said order is not
5 REVN215.16.odt
challenged by the present non-applicant. Thus, the order granting
maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- to the applicants has attained finality.
9. The main application under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is still pending before the learned Magistrate. In
absence of any document on record at this stage, in my view, the
order impugned cannot be faulted with. Further it is stated by the
learned counsel for the applicants that the present non-applicant is
paying Rs.4,000/- per month to the applicants by way of interim
maintenance regularly. There are no arrears.
10. Looking to this and the fact that main application is
pending, it is always open to the applicants to prove the exact
income of the non-applicant in order to claim maintenance at higher
rate. No case is, therefore, made out. Consequently, the criminal
revision application is rejected. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
