Bombay High Court
Anjali W/O. Devidas Suse vs Devidas Machindra Suse on 2 February, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2019
1. Devidas S/o Machindra Suse,
Age 34 years, Occu. Nil.
2. Machindra S/o Bhanudas Suse,
Age 60 years, Occu. Pensioner,
3. Sau. Sindhubai Machindra Suse,
Age 55 years, Occu. Household,
4. Mahesh Machindra Suse,
Age 27 years, Occu. Legal Practitioner,
All R/o Dwarkadish Colony,
Plot No.2, Alamgir Road, Bhingar,
Ahmednagar. ... Applicants.
Versus
Sou. Anjali w/o Devidas Suse,
Age 30 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Warjemalwadi, Popular Nagar,
Block 'B', Flat No.13, Pune,
Present R/o c/o Shri. Bharat Vithoba Tupe,
Amrapur, Tal. Shevgaon,
District Ahmednagar. ... Respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2018
Anjali w/o Devidas Suse,
Age 30 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Warjemalwadi, Popular Nagar, Pune,
Presently R/o c/o Shri. Bharat Vithoba Tupe,
Amrapur, Tal. Shevgaon,
District Ahmednagar. ... Applicant.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2023 21:14:51 :::
2 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
1. Devidas S/o Machindra Suse,
Age 35 years, Occu. Service.
2. Machindra S/o Bhanudas Suse,
Age 62 years, Occu. Service,
3. Sindhubai Machindra Suse,
Age 55 years, Occu. Household,
4. Mahesh Machindra Suse,
Age 29 years, Occu. Education,
All R/o Dwarkadish Colony,
Plot No.2, Alamgir Road, Bhingar,
Ahmednagar.
5. The State of Maharashtra - Deleted. ... Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2018
Anjali w/o Devidas Suse,
Age 30 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Warjemalwadi, Popular Nagar, Pune,
Presently R/o c/o Shri. Bharat Vithoba Tupe,
Amrapur, Tal. Shevgaon,
District Ahmednagar. ... Applicant.
Versus
1. Devidas S/o Machindra Suse,
Age 35 years, Occu. Service.
2. Machindra S/o Bhanudas Suse,
Age 62 years, Occu. Service,
3. Sindhubai Machindra Suse,
Age 55 years, Occu. Household,
4. Mahesh Machindra Suse,
Age 29 years, Occu. Education,
All R/o Dwarkadish Colony,
Plot No.2, Alamgir Road, Bhingar,
Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2023 21:14:51 :::
3 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
5. The State of Maharashtra - Deleted. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Applicants in Rev.276/19 & for R.Nos.1 to 4 in
Rev.112/18, 116/18 : Mr. Rajendra S. Kasar.
Advocate for Applicant in Rev.116/18, 112/18 & for
Respondent in Rev.276/19 : Mr. N. R. Thorat h/f
Mr. G. B. Kadlag.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
RESERVED ON : 03.01.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.02.2023
JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. The applicant Devidas hereafter will be referred to as
'husband' and respondent Anjali as 'wife'.
3. The husband has preferred the Criminal Revision
Application No.276 of 2019. The wife has preferred the
remaining two Criminal Revision Applications. The wife had
filed an application under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short 'D. V. Act')
bearing No.136 of 2013 was partly allowed. The learned
Magistrate granted the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and the
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife. The learned
4 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
Magistrate also directed to secure alternative accommodation
for the wife at village Amrapur, Pune or at Bhingar, Taluka and
District Ahmednagar on rent and on submission of the rent
receipt, the husband was directed to pay the house rent. The
wife had challenged the said order vide Criminal Appeal No.68
of 2016, and the husband had challenged the same order vide
Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2015. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, by a common order dated
12.03.2018, allowed both appeals partly and modified the
order of maintenance granting Rs.10,000/- per month from the
date of filing of the petition including the interim maintenance
of Rs.4,000/- awarded in Hindu Marriage Petition No.357 of
2013 and declared that the wife is entitled to get the enhanced
maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/-
from the date of interim maintenance and quashed the
remaining orders.
4. Learned counsel for the wife has vehemently argued that
each fact was proved, but the Court did not grant the relief of
returning ornaments and articles. No appropriate reasons have
been assigned for modifying the orders. The reason for refusal
to hand over the Stridhan is illegal. A very meager amount of
maintenance was granted. The Appellate Court recorded the
5 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
findings on income contrary to the evidence available on
record. The admission of the income of Rs.6,00,000/- per
annum has been ignored. The wife is entitled to maintenance
of Rs.30,000/- per month. The order granting alternate
accommodation or house rent has been erroneously set aside.
She had been cheated, and harassed physically and mentally.
Hence, she is entitled to compensation. The maintenance
amount should be quantified separately. The husband is highly
educated; hence, an inference of his high income should have
been drawn as he did not disclose his income. Therefore, both
revision applications may be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kasar for the husband
has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge are legal, correct and
proper. The wife is also a Bachelor of Engineering and has now
completed her LLB. She can maintain herself. The quantum
granting maintenance is disproportionate. The Trial Court
order is illegal, improper and incorrect. He prayed to dismiss
the criminal revision applications of the wife and to allow his
application.
6. The Court, in limited revisional jurisdiction, has to
examine the error on the face of the record and cannot re-
6 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
appreciate the evidence. As far as the facts of the case are
concerned, both parties have led their evidence. The evidence
was appreciated by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate
Court. There appear words against words. As far as the
quantum is concerned, it was decided in the absence of any
documentary evidence on the basis that the husband was
working with one private company as a Manager and in
Permanent Spoken English Classes. Considering his education,
the Trial Court made the guesswork and held that the applicant
could earn Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. Considering the standard
of living of the parties, their source of income and expenses,
the appellate Court quantified the maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
and adjusted the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- granted to her in
the Hindu Marriage Petition. Therefore, the amount of
maintenance is enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per month instead of
Rs.5,000/- from the date of interim maintenance.
7. The condition for quantifying the monitory relief under
Section 20 of the D. V. Act was that the monitory relief should
be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the
standard of living to which the aggrieved person is
accustomed. The monetary reliefs are granted under D. V. Act
in addition to the maintenance granted under Section 125 of
7 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force.
Whatsoever the quantum has been determined by the other
competent Court of Law in other proceedings under the other
Law, the Law is settled that such an amount of maintenance
shall be adjusted. It appears that in the absence of any
documentary evidence and the fixed income of the husband,
both Courts have correctly applied the test determining the
quantum of the maintenance on the basis of their standard of
living, education and position in society. The Sole reason for
enhancement is the failure of the husband to make any
arrangement for any maintenance as provided in Section 20 of
the D. V. Act. The husband has a case that he has resigned from
his post and has no source of income. It does not absolve him
from his liability to maintain the wife. A well-abled-bodied
husband shall pay the maintenance. Considering their standard
of living, to which the wife was accustomed and his capacity to
make the income, the quantum enhanced to Rs.10,000/-
appears to be just and proper. Therefore, the order of
enhancement does not warrant interference and the claim of
the wife for maintenance for Rs.30,000/- can also not be
accepted.
8 Cri.Rev.Appln.276-19+2.odt
8. The reason to deny the return of stridhan is supported by
the evidence. The Courts have correctly denied the said relief.
As far as the compensation is concerned, it appears that both
Courts have correctly considered the correct position of Law.
The wife could not make out the case for alternate
accommodation. Therefore this Court is of the view that the
order granting alternate accommodation, the appellate Court
has correctly set aside the order granting house rent.
Examining the record, the Court does not find any error on the
face of the record. None of the criminal revision applications
has substance. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) All Criminal Revision Applications stand dismissed.
(ii) Rule stand discharged. No order as to costs.
(iii) Record and Proceedings be returned to the
learned Trial Court.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
