Capt. Vikrant Shankar Sabnis And ... vs Vaishali Vikrant Sabnis And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2093 Bom

     This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021
Tandale                                                                             2.cri.revn-87-2019.odt



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2019

Capt. Vikrant Shankar Sabnis and Ors.                          ... Applicants.
          Vs.
Vaishali Vikrant Sabnis and Anr.                               ... Respondents.

Ms. Seema Sarnaik for Applicants.
Mr. Bharat More i/b. Mr. Ajinkya Udane for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Amit Palkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2-State.


                                       CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.

DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2021.

P.C. :

The Revision Applicant/original respondent No.1 in Cri. M.A.

No.862 of 2017, has impugned Judgement and Order dated 03 rd January 2019

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.

373 of 2018, therby dismissing it.

2. Heard Smt. Sarnaik, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri

More, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Palkar, learned A.P.P.

for respondent No.2. Perused entire record.

3. The applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein got married on

08th February 2004. Out of the said wedlock daughter Etasha was born on 7 th

July 2005, and son Nilaksh was born on 13 th December 2008. The applicant

No.1 is working in the Indian Navy and holds the rank of 'Captain'. After the

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021 Tandale 2.cri.revn-87-2019.odt

matrimonial discord arose between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.1

herein, the applicant No.1 filed a Petition bearing P.A. No.622 of 2017 under

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court at

Pune on 17th May 2015, for dissolution of marriage. The Naval Authorities in

accordance with Section 31 of the Navy Act 1957, granted maintenance to

respondent No.1-wife @ Rs.30,000/- per month with effect from August 2017.

The said fact was communicated to the respondent No.1 by a communication

dated 22nd December 2017 issued by the Commander, JDPA (Coord).

4. The respondent No.1-wife thereafter filed an Application under

Section 12 and other related sections of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the D.V.Act") before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Cantonment Court at Pune. In the said Application, the

respondent No.1 has prayed for various reliefs as more particularly mentioned

in the para No. 65 of the said Application. The respondent No.1 also filed an

Application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, for interim relief and prayed

that, the respondents (applicants herein) or any of their relatives be

prohibited from committing any act as contemplated under the provisions of

Section 18 of the D.V. Act; for direction to provide same level of alternate

accommodation for the respondent No.1 and her children, as contemplated

under the provisions of Section 19(1)(i) of the D.V. Act; for direction to the

applicant No.1 to provide educational expenses of minor Nilaksh to the tune

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021 Tandale 2.cri.revn-87-2019.odt

of Rs.1,50,000/- yearly and for direction to the applicant No.1 to provide

monetary reliefs to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent No.1

and their minor son Nilaksh, as contemplated under the provisions of Section

20(d) of the D.V. Act.

The applicant No.1 filed his reply to the said Application on 20 th

February 2018. The Trial Court by its Order dated 19 th May 2018 passed

below Exh.23 was pleased to partly allow the said Application filed by the

respondent No.1. The Trial Court directed the applicant No.1 to pay interim

maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and

their son Nilaksh from the date of filing of the said Application. The

applicants have been restrained from committing any act of domestic violence

on the respondent No.1 and her son Nilaksh and the applicant No.1 has been

directed to provide alternative accommodation to the respondent No.1 and

their son Nilaksh to that standard of living, when the respondent No.1 was

living in the house of applicant No.1.

Feeling aggrieved by the said Order dated 19 th May 2018, the

applicants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2018 under Section 29 of

D.V. Act, on 13th June 2018 before the District and Sessions Court, Pune. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by its impugned Judgment and Order

dated 3rd January 2019 has dismissed the said Appeal. The said Judgment

and Order dated 3rd January 2019 has been impugned in the present Revision

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021 Tandale 2.cri.revn-87-2019.odt

Application, as noted earlier.

5. Smt. Sarnaik, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that,

the respondent No.1 is already receiving maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/-

per month under the Orders of Naval Authorities, in accordance with Section

31 of the Navy Act. She submitted that, the respondent No.1 is doing a job

and out of the income from job she is able to maintain herself. She submitted

that, it is also the responsibility of respondent No.1 to contribute towards

maintenance of their daughter. She submitted that, the applicant No.1 is

holding high rank in the Navy and has been provided with official

accommodation, therefore the directions of the Trial Court to provide

alternative accommodation to the respondent No.1 to that standard of living,

when the respondent No.1 was living in the house of applicant No.1 is

practically not possible. She therefore prayed that, both the Orders dated 19 th

May 2018 and impugned Order dated 3rd January 2019 may be quashed and

set aside.

Per contra, Mr. More, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-

wife supported the impugned Order and prayed for dismissal of the present

Revision Application.

6. At the outset, it is to be noted here that, the Order impugned

herein passed under Section 29 of the D.V. Act is arising out of an

interlocutory Order passed by the Trial Court below Exh.23 under Section 23

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021 Tandale 2.cri.revn-87-2019.odt

of the D.V. Act. The Cri.M.A. No. 862 of 2017 is pending for final

adjudication before the Trial Court. It is only as and by way of interim relief,

the Trial Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance in

favour of respondent No.1. Even after taking into consideration the

maintenance awarded by the Naval Authorities @ Rs.30,000/- per month in

favour of respondent No.1-wife and after deducting the EMI of Rs.13,496/-

being paid by the applicant No.1 towards repayment of housing loan, it

appears from the salary slip of the applicant No.1 that, his take-home salary is

more than Rs.1 lakh.

7. Though, the respondent No.1 claimed interim maintenance of

Rs.20,000/- per month, the Trial Court has awarded reasonable interim

maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month considering the financial capacity of

the Applicant No.1. This Court therefore does not find any illegality or error

in the directions issued by the Trial Court by its Order dated 19 th May 2018

and upheld by the Appellate Court by its impugned Judgment and Order

dated 3rd January 2019.

8. As far as, the directions of the Trial Court in para No.10 of Order

dated 19th May 2018, of providing alternative accommodation to the

respondent No.1 is concerned, it prima facie appears that, the Trial Court has

not directed that, the alternative accommodation should be equivalent to the

accommodation being provided to the applicant No.1 by Naval Authorities.

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021 Tandale 2.cri.revn-87-2019.odt

The requirement as has been mentioned there is of, standard of living of the

applicant No.1 and therefore it does not mean that, the alternate

accommodation should be as spacious as the Naval quarters. The only

requirement which appears to be is that, the accommodation should meet

standard of living of respondent No.1 and therefore the contention of the

learned counsel for the applicant No.1, in that respect is not accepted. At the

cost of repetition, it can be reiterated that, the Trial Court has only directed to

provide alternative accommodation to the respondent No.1 and her son to the

standard of living of applicant No.1.

The record indicates that, from 14 th June 2018 their daughter

Etasha is also residing with the respondent No.1 and therefore the alternate

accommodation to be provided to the respondent No.1, be of such a standard

that it will accommodate three persons easily.

9. In view of the above and after perusing impugned Judgment and

Order this Court is of the opinion that, there is no illegality, error or perversity

in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 3 rd January 2019 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

10. Revision Application being dehors of merits is accordingly

dismissed.

11. The applicant No.1 is directed to clear entire arrears as of today

within a period of six months from the date of uploading of the present Order

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021 Tandale 2.cri.revn-87-2019.odt

on the High Court website.

12. Section 24 of the Navy Act, 1957 prescribes for priority of hearing

of cases concerning persons in the Naval Services by Civil or Revenue Court.

The learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Pune seized of P.A. No. 622 of 2017 is

therefore directed to expedite the hearing of the said Application filed by the

applicant No.1 herein.

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)