Shaikh Imranoddin Shaikh ... vs Saba W/O. Imranoddin Shaikh And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6683 Bom

                                                                     crirev192.22
                                     (1)

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         939 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2022

               SHAIKH IMRANODDIN SHAIKH HAFIJODDIN
                             VERSUS
             SABA W/O. IMRANODDIN SHAIKH AND ANOTHER


 Mrs. Saie Joshi, Advocate on behalf of J.P.Legal Associates, for the
 applicant

                                   CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 14th July, 2022

P.C.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 3.8.2022.

3. Call R & P.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that

the learned Judge, Family Court has recorded the contradictory

finding on facts. The learned Court did not consider the fact that the

respondent No.1 has voluntarily left the company of the petitioner on

17.04.2018. The respondent did not discharge the burden that she

was refused and neglected by the applicant. This material aspect has

also not been considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court.

The interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively to

crirev192.22

the respondents No. 1 and 2 has been granted by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class in a proceeding under the provisions of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short,

"D.V. Act"). However, the learned Judge, Family Court has granted

the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent no.1 and

Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent no.2. This is a double

jeopardy. The applicant has a good case on merit. Hence, the

execution, implementation and effect of the impugned order may be

stayed.

5. Perused the impugned judgment and order. It has been

specifically observed by the learned Judge of the Family Court that

the present applicant did not produce an affidavit as per the

guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of

Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. However, he has not denied

that he has a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. It has also been

observed by the learned Judge that the present applicant has failed to

disprove the allegations levelled against him by the respondents no.1

and 2. However, a care has been taken by the learned Judge to adjust

the amount of maintenance granted by him with the amount of

maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in

the D.V. Act case. If these facts are considered, the learned Judge,

crirev192.22

Family Court has enhanced the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- compared

to the interim maintenance granted by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the following order is

passed :-

The execution, implementation, effect and operation of the

impugned judgment and order passed in Petition E No. 53 of 2019,

dated 12.11.2021 by the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, is stayed

on the condition that the applicant shall deposit 50% of the arrears of

the maintenance in this Court within six weeks and continue to pay

the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month directly to the respondent

no.1 till the appearance of the respondents.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

amj