Vijayarani Punjabrao Jawanjal ... vs Punjabrao Uttamrao Jawanjal And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 388 Bom

                          1              5.WP.787-2019 JUDGMENT.odt




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 787 OF 2019


1. Vijayarani d/o Punjabrao Jawanjal,
   Aged about 9 years.


2. Supriya d/o Punjabrao Jawanjal,
   Aged about 6 years.


3. Vishvabhushan s/o Punjabrao
   Jawanjal,
   Aged about 6 years,
   through their natural Guardian
   Shobha Punjabrao Jawanjal,
   Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
   All 1 to 3 R/o Panchasheel Nagar,
   Wadegaon, Tah. Balapur,
   District-Akola.                            PETITIONERS


     Versus


1. Punjabrao Uttamrao Jawanjal,
   Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service,
   R/o. Panchasheel Nagar, Wadegaon,
   Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.


2. State of Maharashtra,
   through its Police Station Officer,
   Police Station, Balapur,
   Tah. Balapur, District-Akola.              RESPONDENTS
                                  2                5.WP.787-2019 JUDGMENT.odt




-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Sagar Katkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Nandeshwar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Shamsi Z. Haider, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2/State.
-----------------------------------------------


                      CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                      DATED     : 11th JANUARY, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-


              Heard    Mr.    Katkar,   learned     counsel          for       the

petitioners, Mr. Nandeshwar, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1 and Mrs. Haider, learned APP for the respondent

No.2/State.

2. Mr. Katkar, learned counsel for the petitioners,

undertakes to deposit the requisite court fee of Rs. 125/- today

itself.

3. The only issue in the matter, is the reversal of the

order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur

passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

granting maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) 3 5.WP.787-2019 JUDGMENT.odt

to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, which has been reversed by the

learned Sessions Court, Akola, by holding that the husband has

no fixed source of income, since he is doing a tailoring job,

whereas the mother being employed as a teacher has a fixed

salary of nearly Rs. 50,000/- per month.

4. Mr. Katkar, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits, that the respondent No.1/husband being an abled

bodied person is legally and morally bound to contribute to the

maintenance of the children, and therefore, the learned Sessions

Court, Akola, ought not to have reversed the judgment of the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur.

5. Mr. Nandeshwar, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1 submits, that insofar as, the legal and moral responsibility

of the respondent No.1 to contribute towards the maintenance

of the children, the same cannot be disputed, however, the

question for contribution, has necessarily to be linked to the

income of the respondent No.1. He further submits, that in

these hard times of Covid-19 pandemic, there is hardly any

work available for the respondent No.1, considering which, the 4 5.WP.787-2019 JUDGMENT.odt

learned Sessions Court, Akola, has rightly passed the impugned

judgment. He further submits, that since the respondent No.1

has suffered a heart attack, the Doctor had advised him not to

even undertake tailoring work because of his health.

6. It cannot be disputed, that the respondent No.1,

would morally and legally be bound to contribute towards the

maintenance of the children. However in the peculiar

circumstances arsing in the present matter, the respondent No.1,

who was doing tailoring work, due to the pandemic, obviously,

appears to be in dire straits, which has adversely affected the

income. Considering the admitted position, that the mother of

the petitioners, is employed as a teacher, having a permanent

job and her salary, as of now, as per the statement of Mr. Katkar,

learned counsel for the petitioners, is Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy

Five Thousand Only), she is much well of, to maintain the

children. In view of which, in absence of anything placed on

record regarding the income of respondent No.1 and also

considering the situation arisen out of Covid-19 pandemic, I do

not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of

the learned Sessions Court, Akola. The petition is therefore 5 5.WP.787-2019 JUDGMENT.odt

dismissed, with no order as to costs.

7. Needless to say, that in future, if the petitioners are

able to bring on record material to indicate the income of the

respondent No.1, the petitioners will be fully entitled, to move

an appropriate application before the learned trial Court for

grant of maintenance.

8. Rule is discharged.

( AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

S.D.Bhimte

Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE

Signing Date:13.01.2022 10:20