Bombay High Court
Sau Shweta Alias Lochni Nikhil ... vs Nikhil Alias Yeshu Madhav Sonone on 20 April, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
38crirevn190.19.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2019
Sau. Shweta @ Lochni Nikhil Sonone and two ors
...Versus...
Nikhil @ Yeshu Madhav Sonone
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. A.R.Sambre with Mrs. Prajkta Chaudhari, Advocates for the applicant
Mr. J.Y.Ghurde, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 19/04/2022
1] Heard Mrs. Prajkta Chaudhari, learned counsel
for the applicant and Mr. Ghurde, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2] The revision application challenges the judgment
dated 03.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Akola,
whereby the claim for maintenance by the applicant/wife has
been rejected, though the maintenance to the tune of
Rs. 4,500/- each per month is granted to the two children.
3] Mrs. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the impugned judgment though in para 21 has
held, considering all that has been pleaded in the proceedings,
that the applicant requires amount for her maintenance, no
38crirevn190.19.odt
reasons whatsoever have been given for rejecting her claim.
4] I have gone through the impugned order with the
assistance of Mrs. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the applicant
and Mr. Ghurde, learned counsel for the respondent and both
of them have been unable to point out any reason for the said
rejection. This ground alone is enough to set aside the
impugned order in so far as it rejects the claim of maintenance
by the applicant-wife. In the normal course, I would have
remanded the matter back to learned Family Court to decide
the quantum of maintenance, however, considering that the
proceedings before the learned Family Court have been
initiated in the year 2016 and the evidence and cross
examination of the respondent in which he has categorically
stated that he is not willing to cohabit with the applicant/wife
even if she was ready to do so, a query was put to Mr. Ghurde,
learned counsel for the respondent, as to how munch
maintenance the respondent would be willing to pay, to which
upon instructions, the reply is Rs. 1500/- per month.
However, considering what the learned Family Court has
discussed in para 20 of the impugned order regarding the
financial status of the respondent, in my considered opinion
an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month would be just and fair
maintenance to the applicant/wife, considering the present
cost of living. It is however made clear that such maintenance
shall be payable from the date of the present order and not
38crirevn190.19.odt
from the date of the application.
5] The petition is accordingly allowed. The
impugned judgment in so far as it rejects the claim of the
applicant/wife for maintenance is quashed and set aside and it
is directed that the respondent shall be liable to pay
maintenance to the applicant/wife at the rate of Rs. 5000/-
per month from the date of the present order.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:20.04.2022 16:41
