Bombay High Court
Rajnesh S/O Rajendrapal Naidu vs Neha W/O Rajnesh Naidu(Joshi) And ... on 10 July, 2023
Bench: G. A. Sanap
1 18 appw112..23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO. 112 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 358 OF 2023
RAJNESH S/o RAJENDRAPAL NAIDU
VERSUS
MRS. NEHA W/o RAJNESH NAIDU (JOSHI) AND ANOTHER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rajnesh R. Naidu, Petitioner in person.
Mr. Prakash Naidu, Advocate appointed for the non-applicants.
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : JULY 10, 2023.
1. The petitioner-in-person has made this application
and prayed that the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- deposited in
the Family Court, may not be disbursed to the respondents/
wife and son, till CMA No. 17/2023 is finally decided.
2. It is stated that CMA No. 17/2023 has been filed
under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In
the said application, the petitioner has prayed for initiation
of proceeding against the respondents for making false
statement in judicial proceeding. It is stated that if the
amount deposited by him is withdrawn by the respondents,
then the very purpose of filing the petition would be
frustrated.
3. This application has been opposed by the
respondents. It is contended that the main application for
maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been
finally decided on 05.04.2023 and the respondent no.1 is
2 18 appw112..23.odt
granted maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month and
respondent no.2 is granted maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per
month from the date of the order. It is stated that the
proceeding filed under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. has
nothing to do with the right of the respondents to get the
amount of maintenance deposited by the petitioner.
4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the amount has
been deposited by way of stop-gap arrangement. The
application for maintenance was filed by the respondents in
2013. During pendency of the main application, for the
period from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015, by way of interim
maintenance, the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.20,000/-
per month to both the respondents and from 01.09.2015 till
the final order, the petitioner was ordered to pay
Rs.25,000/- per month to both the respondents.
5. It is not out of place to mention that the amount
which has been deposited by the petitioner is in terms of the
orders passed by the Family Court from time to time. In
view of the facts stated in this application, the only question
that needs to be considered is, as to whether the
respondents can be denied their right to withdraw the
maintenance deposited by the petitioner on the ground of
pendency of the application filed under Section 340 of
Cr.P.C.
6. In my view, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot
be allowed. The application for grant of maintenance has
been finally decided on 05.04.2023. The petitioner is,
therefore, under an obligation to make payment of
3 18 appw112..23.odt
maintenance. The respondents are entitled to withdraw the
amount of maintenance deposited by the petitioner.
7. It is not out of place to mention that Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. is a social beneficial legislation. The object behind
this provision is to prevent the destitution and vagrancy of
the person, who is entitled to claim maintenance and who
has been denied the maintenance by the person who is
under an obligation to pay the same.
8. The Family Court has, after recording evidence of the
parties, finally adjudicated the application under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents. In my view, the
grounds stated in this application to deny the right of the
respondents to withdraw the amount, is not tenable.
9. As far as second part of the prayer is concerned, the
same cannot be granted by this Court. The application
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is pending before the Family
Court. The petitioner can apply before the Family Court in
this Court. As and when such an application is made, the
learned Judge shall decide the same in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the criminal application is rejected.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 358 of 2023
1. The petitioner-in-person submits that by mistake he
has filed the writ petition instead of filing revision
application against the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. He,
therefore, prays for grant of leave to convert this writ
petition into revision.
4 18 appw112..23.odt
2. It is undisputed that against the impugned judgment
and order, revision would lie.
3. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner is
granted.
4. The petitioner-in-person is directed to provide hard
copy of the petition to the learned advocate for the
respondents.
JUDGE
Diwale
