Bombay High Court
Rajendra Namdeo Magre vs Gangasagar Rajendra Magre @ ... on 6 February, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 57-Cri.Rev.Appln.122-21 Oral Jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2021
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2258 OF 2021
IN REVN/122/2021
Rajendra S/o Namdeo Magre,
Age 42 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Padampura, Navi Vasti, Aurangabad
Dist. Aurangabad. ... Applicant
Versus
Gangasagar Rajendra Magre
@ Gangasagar Punjaram Kamble,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agriculture and Business,
R/o Pokhari Pirachi,
Tq. Jafrabad, District Jalna. ... Respondent.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pahilwan Gautam J.
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. V. B. Kulkarni.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 06.02.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. The present criminal revision application has been
preferred against the two consecutive judgments passed
directing the applicant to pay the maintenance,
2 57-Cri.Rev.Appln.122-21 Oral Jud.odt
3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant
revolve around the facts that the respondent/wife did not
prove when the domestic violence was committed and the
divorce decree passed in favour of the applicant has also not
been properly weighed. He relied on the case of Deb Narayan
Halder Vs. Anushree Halder (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases
303, in which, the law has been laid down that when the wife
left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground, she
is not entitled to the maintenance. He further argued that the
judgments of both Courts are erroneous on the face of record.
They did not consider the legal position of the entitlement of
the wife after the divorce. Therefore, both judgments and
orders are erroneous.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has
argued that the facts have been discussed in detail by both
Courts, the law relating to the entitlement of the relief under
D. V. Act has also been discussed in detail, it has been proved
that the domestic violence was caused. The applicant had
withdrawn his petition for restitution of conjugal rights and
during the application was pending under D. V. Act, he
obtained the ex-parte divorce. He has referred to paragraph
No.20 of the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, First
3 57-Cri.Rev.Appln.122-21 Oral Jud.odt
Class, Jafrabad, wherein the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni
Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori (2014) 10 SCC 736 has been referred.
Referring the judgments of the Courts, he would argue that
both judgments are free from infirmity and error of law.
Therefore, the criminal revision application deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Perused the judgments and orders impugned before the
Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has correctly
referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Juveria Abdul (supra), in which, the law has been laid down
that the act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent
decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the
respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit
to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 including the monetary relief under Section
20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act.
6. The law is well settled that the subsequent decree of
divorce after the application under D. V. Act is filed does not
absolve the respondent from his liability including the
monetary relief. Both Courts have discussed the law and
considered the defence of divorce prayed by the petitioners.
4 57-Cri.Rev.Appln.122-21 Oral Jud.odt
7. Both Courts have also considered the defence of the
petitioner/husband that she herself left his home. After
appreciating the evidence, they have correctly discarded the
defence.
8. The judgments and orders impugned before this Court
appears to have been passed appreciating the facts, evidence
and the law pertaining to the dispute. Both judgments and
orders are free from error. The applicant has no strong ground
to seek the interference in the impugned judgments and
orders.
9. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Application
stands dismissed.
10. Rule made discharged.
11. Criminal Application No.2258 of 2021 accordingly
disposed of.
12. Record and Proceedings be returned to the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
