Bombay High Court
Shaikh Taher S/O. Shaikh Pasha vs Kalima Begam W/O. Shaikh Taher And ... on 14 December, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 263 OF 2019
SHAIKH TAHER S/O SHAIKH PASHA
VERSUS
KALIMA BEGAM W/O SHAIKH TAHER AND ANR
Shri. Kayyum N. Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant
Shri. Mohammed Asim Shaikh Saleem, Advocate for the
respondents
CORAM : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2021
PER COURT :-
1. This application arises out of the judgment and order
passed by the JMFC Court, dated 16th January, 2017 in PWDVA
No. 454 of 2015.
2. Applicant has filed this application for seeking
monetary relief, protection orders and compensation orders
under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22, 23, 24 of Protection of
Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. The learned JMFC Court awarded maintenance at the
rate of Rs.7,000/- per month for applicant No.1-wife and
Rs.3,000/- per month for applicant No. 4 till she attains the age
rev263.19.odt 1 of 4
of majority from the date of filing of the application till
realization the entire amount. Learned JMFC, court has come to
the conclusion that there was domestic violence because of
which the applicant is entitled to maintenance with separate
residence. At the time of the application applicant No. 4 was
minor. The learned Trial Court found that respondent is an
operator in MSEB. The learned Trial Court found that applicant
has sufficient income from the salary. The learned Magistrate
found that applicant has caused domestic violence to
respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Rest of the two are married daughter
and major son. Therefore, their applications were not
considered. Learned Magistrate found that applicant is getting
salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.55,000/-. Learned Magistrate found
that respondent-husband is getting salary of Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.22,000/- per month. Learned Magistrate further found that
during cross-examination respondent admitted that he is
getting salary of Rs.45,700/- and he also admitted that he is
owner of the agricultural land. Therefore, learned Magistrate
found that the applicant is having sufficient means. Therefore,
learned Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate of
rev263.19.odt 2 of 4
Rs.7,000/- per month to applicant-wife and Rs.3,000/- per
month to applicant No.4 unmarried daughter till she attains the
age of majority.
4. In appeal learned District Additional Sessions Judge
modified the amount of maintenance and directed that
Rs.5,000/- be paid as rent to the applicant-wife. This order is
impugned in this revision.
5. Learned counsel Shri. Kayyum Shaikh submitted that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge without any evidence has
awarded Rs.5,000/- as rent to be paid to the applicant-wife. He
submitted that wife is residing with her brother at Aurangabad.
6. Applicant did not adduce any evidence before the
learned Magistrate to show that the respondent-wife is residing
with her brother. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court was
justified in rejecting the contention of the applicant and
awarding Rs.5,000/- per month as rent. Admittedly, she is living
separately from applicant-husband. There is no proof that she is
living with her brother. Therefore, the natural corollary is that
rev263.19.odt 3 of 4
she is staying in rented house. Therefore, the learned Appellate
Court did not commit any error in awarding rent of Rs.5,000/-
per month to the respondent-wife. As observed by learned
Magistrate, the applicant admitted in the cross-examination
that his salary is Rs.45,700/- per month. In this view of the
matter, learned Appellate Court did not commit any error in
awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for both respondent and
unmarried daughter-respondent No. 4. The learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class has awarded maintenance to respondent
No. 4 till she attains the age of majority. Therefore, the amount
of maintenance granted at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month is
neither excessive nor unreasonable. In this view of the matter, I
do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge confirming the order of maintenance passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. In this view of the
matter, revision is devoid of any substance, hence dismissed.
[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.]
ssp
rev263.19.odt 4 of 4
