Mukesh Vijay Tharali vs Pornima Mukesh Tharali Alias ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15665 Bom

                      Rane                         1/2            REVN-203-2021(SR.11)
                                                                        29October,2021

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 203 OF 2021



                      Mukesh Vijay Tharali                       .....Applicant

                             V/s.

                      Pornima Mukesh Tharali Alias
                      Poonam M. Tharali alias
                      Punam M. Tharali and Ors.                  .....Respondents

                                            ****

                      Mr. Kaushal Tamhane i/by. Dhanuka & Partners, Advocate
                      for the applicant.

                      Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for State.


                                       Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Friday, 29th October, 2021.

P.C. :

1. Heard.

2. This revision challenges the order of maintenance

passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Digitally signed by Violence Act. On 12th March, 2018 the learned Judicial NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date:

2021.10.29 17:14:01 Magistrate First Class, Pune directed the applicant-husband +0530

to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per month Rane 2/2 REVN-203-2021(SR.11) 29October,2021

from the date of the application till the date of disposal. This

order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2018. The

Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal and scaled down

the maintenance from Rs.52,000/- to Rs.25,000/- vide

judgment and order dated 21st September, 2021. Feeling

aggrieved by these orders, the applicant-husband has

approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Learned

Counsel for the applicant, submitted the orders were

obtained by practising fraud on the Court, in as much as, the

respondent-wife in Affidavit had stated that, she did not held

any Account in the Bank. It is submitted that, both the

Courts have failed to follow the guidelines and directions set

out by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha &

Anr. 2020 SCC Online SC 903, before awarding maintenance

to the wife.

3. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after eight

weeks i.e. on 7th January, 2022.

4. Interim relief is refused.

(Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)