Bombay High Court
Dnyandeo Rambhau Jaibhay vs Manisha W/O. Dnyandeo Jaibhay And ... on 10 March, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 933-Cri.Rev.Appln.81-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
933 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2021
DNYANDEO RAMBHAU JAIBHAY
VERSUS
MANISHA W/O. DNYANDEO JAIBHAY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Tungar Hrishikesh V.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S. G. Kawade.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 10.03.2023
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The wife and children had filed petition for maintenance
on 27.07.2015. The applicant/husband did not appear. He
thus appeared with an application to leave to file written
statement. Leave was granted with costs, but he did not pay.
He again applied for permission to file written statement. The
Court considered his request and imposing additional costs,
allowed him to file written statement. Mean time, the matter
was transferred to the Family Court. The applicant/husband
was represented before the Family Court through lawyer.
However, the witnesses were not cross-examined. Therefore,
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2023 20:29:58 :::
2 933-Cri.Rev.Appln.81-21.odt
the applicant/husband on 06.04.2021 had applied to grant him
an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned
Judge, Family Court, Beed considering his past conduct
declined to grant him a leave to cross-examine the witnesses
and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant would argue that
situation were beyond the control of the applicant. It was a
Covid-2019 pandemic period. The present applicant went
away for livelihood. Hence, he could not reach the Court on
time. He would argue that sufficient opportunity to contest the
petition on merit may be granted and his interest may be
protected.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent/wife and
children would argue that the conduct of the applicant was not
fair. Time and again, the opportunity was granted to him. Till
date, he did not pay a single penny to the respondents. He is
deliberately avoiding his responsibility. The impugned order is
legal, correct and proper.
5. It appears from the record that for one reason or the
other, the present applicant/husband did not cross-examine the
witnesses. He has assigned the reason that due to Covid-19, he
could not reach the Court and cross-examine the witnesses.
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2023 20:29:58 :::
3 933-Cri.Rev.Appln.81-21.odt
When he moved an application on 06.04.2021, the judgment
was not delivered. The case was just closed for delivering the
judgment. The judgment was pronounced on the very same
day when his application for permission to cross-examine the
witnesses was rejected. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that fair
opportunity to contest the matter on merit should be granted.
However, the conduct of the applicant/husband cannot be
ignored. He did not pay a single penny to the respondent/wife
and children. Prima facie they have no source of income.
Therefore, certain conditions may be imposed. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order of the learned
Judge, Family Court, Beed in Petition No.E-14 of
2020, dated 06.04.2021 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The case is remitted back to the Judge Family
Court, Beed for disposal on merit by giving an
opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the
witnesses and lead the evidence on the conditions
that ;
4 933-Cri.Rev.Appln.81-21.odt
(a) He shall deposit half of the arrears of
maintenance as per the order dated 06.04.2021 in
three (3) equal installments.
(b) He shall deposit the first installment of the
arrears of maintenance on 03.04.2023 and
thereafter deposit money in remaining two
installments.
(c) In addition to this, the applicant shall
continue to pay the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to
Non-Applicant No.1 and Rs.1500/- each to Non-
Applicant Nos.2 and 3 by way of interim
maintenance till the conclusion of the petition on
merit.
(iv) After compliance of the above conditions, the
Judge, Family Court, Beed is requested to dispose
of the matter within three (3) months thereafter.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
