Bombay High Court
Wrucha W/O Nagsen Dambhare vs Nagsen Manikrao Dambhare on 19 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8167
Judgment
448 revn24.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2024
Wrucha w/o Nagsen Dambhare,
age : 37 years, occupation:NIL,
r/o c/o Bhanudas Jiwane,
Aradhana Housing Society,
Chintaamani Nagar No.1,
Manewada Besa Road,
Nagpur-440027. ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
Nagsen Manikrao Dambhare,para
Aged about 39 years, occupation service,
Local Address: r/o plot No.285,
Vighnaharta Apartment,
Empress Mill Society,
Nagpur-440015,
and overseas address (present address)
Common Wealth Bank, Shop C-4,
Darting Walk 1, Harbour St.Sydney,
NSW -200 Australia. ..... Non-applicants.
Shri A.H.Jamal, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri Akshay Bagade, Counsel for the Non-applicant.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 17/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19/08/2025
.....2/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
2
JUDGMENT
1. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel Shri
A.H.Jamal for the applicant and learned counsel Shri
Akshay Bagade for the non-applicant.
2. By this revision, the applicant is seeking
enhancement of maintenance amount granted to her by
learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Nagpur while
disposing of Petition E.Nos.456/2019 and 956/2019 @
Rs.25000/- per month towards permanent alimony from
the date of order dated 15.9.2023, till she marries.
3. Facts of the case are as under:
The applicant and the non-applicant married on
1.1.2015 as per the customs. The applicant resumed
cohabitation at the house of the non-applicant. She
alleged that after the marriage, the behaviour of the non-
applicant with her was not good and she was treated with
.....3/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
ill-treatment. The non-applicant was doing job at
Singapore and in his absence, the applicant has taken all
care of her mother-in-law at matrimonial house. When
she joined the non-applicant at Singapore, he used to
enquire with her about her past life. He was suspecting
her character. He was insisting her to return to India and
finally, forcibly, he sent her to India in July 2015. His
intention was not to continue marital relationship with
her. The meeting was held with the relatives and non-
applicant was agreed to continue the marital relationship
with the applicant. However, thereafter, he used to pick-
up quarrels with her and used to threaten her to
implicate her falsely. He used to abuse her and,
therefore, she was constrained to leave her matrimonial
house.
.....4/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
4. It is further alleged that the non-applicant got new
job at Sydney (Australia) in Common Wealth Bank.
Despite he is having good earning, he has not taken care
of her maintenance and not made any provisions of her
maintenance. She has no source of income for survival.
Whereas, the non-applicant is working in the bank and
drawing salary of Rs.5.00 lacs per month. As there were
no changes or reunion, she preferred an applications
bearing No.E.956/2019 seeking dissolution of marriage
and No.456/2019 for grant of maintenance under
Section 125 of the CrPC. Despite the notice is served, the
non-applicant failed to adduce his evidence and also
failed to cross examine the applicant.
5. After hearing the applicant, learned Judge, Family
Court No.4, Nagpur was pleased to pass decree of
dissolution of marriage. While passing the said order,
.....5/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
learned Judge of the Family Court granted permanent
alimony @ Rs.25000/- per month, at the same time,
rejected the application for grant of maintenance.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection
of the maintenance application and granting
maintenance @ Rs.25000/- per month, which is a very
meager amount, the present revision is preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at
the time of awarding permanent alimony and rejecting
the application for grant of maintenance, learned Judge
of the Family Court has not considered that the applicant
is not having any source of income. Whereas, the non-
applicant is getting handsome salary as his earning.
However, learned Judge of the Family Court granted
maintenance at a very lower rate. Learned Judge of the
Family Court has not considered that day by day prices of
.....6/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
essential commodities are touching to the sky. The
applicant has to maintain herself and she has to maintain
herself as per the status of her husband. In view of that,
the application deserves to be allowed by enhancing the
maintenance amount.
8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the applicant placed reliance on Rajnesh vs. Neha,
reported in (2021)2 SCC 324.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant
supported the order passed by learned Judge of the
Family Court and submitted that though the applicant has
claimed that the non-applicant is earning Rs.5.00 lacs, he
has not placed any document. On the contrary, her
evidence itself shows that she is highly qualified and
doing job at Bangalore. Thus, she is not dependent upon
.....7/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
the non-applicant. In view of that, the revision being
devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
10. On hearing both the sides, it reveals that as far as
matrimonial relationship is concerned, the same is not in
dispute. Admittedly, the evidence of the applicant, as to
refusal and neglect, also remained unchallenged. The
applicant herself filed the application for dissolution of
marriage wherein also she has claimed permanent
alimony. She has also filed an application for grant of
maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
11. While granting permanent alimony, learned Judge,
Family Court No.4, Nagpur has rejected the application
for grant of maintenance by observing that while
granting maintenance to the wife and children, what is
required to be seen is, the status of the parties,
reasonable needs of wife, dependent children, whether
.....8/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
the wife is educated and professionally qualified, whether
she has any independent source of income to maintain
herself, the same standard of living as to her matrimonial
house, and whether she was working during subsistence
of marriage etc.
12. Learned counsel for the non-applicant invited my
attention towards the pleadings and submitted that her
pleadings itself show that she is qualified lady and was
working at Bangalore, which is sufficient to show that she
is able bodied and qualified woman and can earn for her
livelihood. As far as refusal or neglect is concerned, the
same is not established by her and, therefore, order
passed by learned Judge of the Family Court granting
permanent alimony to her is proper and legal one.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance
on Rajnesh vs. Neha supra wherein the Hon'ble Apex
.....9/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
Court, while considering the various provisions granting
relief of maintenance, observed that the issue, whether
maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC could be
awarded by the Magistrate after permanent alimony was
granted to the wife in the divorce proceeding, came up
for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Criminal Appeal No (s).246-247/2020 (Rakesh Malhotra
vs. Krishna Malhotra) decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court
on 7.2.2020 wherein it is held that once order of
permanent alimony is passed, the same could be modified
by the same court by exercising its powers under Section
25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
14. In Nagendrapal Natikar vs. Neelamma, reported in
AIR 2013 SC (Cri) 948 the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered a case where wife instituted suit under
.....10/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court by referring its earlier
decision in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha supra observed
that it is well settled that a wife can make a claim for
maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there
is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act
and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or
under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct
the husband to pay maintenance under each of the
proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a
previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the
wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a
legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent
proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under
another enactment. While deciding the quantum of
.....11/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil
court/family court shall take into account the
maintenance awarded in any previously instituted
proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to
the claimant.
It is further observed that to overcome the issue of
overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders
being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a
subsequent maintenance proceeding, the Applicant shall
disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the
orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into
consideration the maintenance already awarded in the
previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off
of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous
proceeding requires any modification or variation, the
.....12/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
party would be required to move the concerned court in
the previous proceeding.
16. Thus, the right of the wife is identified for grant of
maintenance under various enactments. At the same
time, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there should
be adjustment of the said amount if it is granted under
the various provisions. There is no dispute that the wife is
entitled for grant maintenance considering the status of
her husband. At the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda, reported
in MANU/SC/1374/2024 observed, as under:
"14.5 We have serious reservations with the
tendency of parties seeking maintenance or
alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the
other party. It is often seen that parties in their
application for maintenance or alimony highlight
the assets, status and income of their spouse, and
then ask for an amount that can equal their
wealth to that of the spouse. However, there is an
inconsistency in this practice, because the
.....13/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
demands of equalisation are made only in cases
where the spouse is a person of means or is doing
well for himself. But such demands are
conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of
the spouse has decreased since the time of
separation. There cannot be two different
approaches to seeking and granting maintenance
or alimony, depending on the status and income
of the spouse. The law of maintenance is aimed at
empowering the destitute and achieving social
justice and dignity of the individual. The husband
is under a legal obligation to sufficiently provide
for his wife. As per settled law, the wife is entitled
to be maintained as far as possible in a manner
that is similar to what she was accustomed to in
her matrimonial home while the parties were
together. But once the parties have separated, it
cannot be expected of the husband to maintain
her as per his present status all his life. If the
husband has moved ahead and is fortunately
doing better in life post his separation, then to ask
him to always maintain the status of the wife as
per his own changing status would be putting a
burden on his own personal progress. We
wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an
equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to
some unfortunate events post-separation, he has
been rendered a pauper?"
.....14/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
17. The law with respect to deciding the amount of
permanent alimony is settled by the various decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Kiran Jyot Maini
vs. Anish Pramod Patel, reported in (2024)7 SCR 942, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the facts as follows:
"The status of the parties is a significant factor,
encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and
financial background. The reasonable needs of the
wife and dependent children must be assessed,
including costs for food, clothing, shelter,
education, and medical expenses. The applicant's
educational and professional qualifications, as well
as their employment history, play a crucial role in
evaluating their potential for self sufficiency. If the
applicant has any independent source of income or
owns property, this will also be taken into account
to determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same
standard of living experienced during the marriage.
Additionally, the court considers whether the
applicant had to sacrifice employment
opportunities for family responsibilities, such as
child-rearing or caring for elderly family members,
which may have impacted their career prospects."
.....15/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
18. In another decision in Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs.
Paramvir Parmar, reported in (2011)9 SCR 371, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that as there cannot be a fixed
formula or a straitjacket rubric for fixing the amount of
permanent alimony and only broad principles can be laid
down, the question of maintenance is subjective to each
case and depends on various factors and circumstances as
presented in individual cases. This Court in the above
judgment stated that the courts shall consider the
following broad factors while determining permanent
alimony - income and properties of both the parties
respectively, conduct of the parties, status, social and
financial, of the parties, their respective personal needs,
capacity and duty to maintain others dependent on them,
husband's own expenses, wife's comfort considering her
status and the mode of life she was used to during the
.....16/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
subsistence of the marriage, among other supplementary
factors.
19. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha supra , elaborated
upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered
for determining the quantum of maintenance. The
Hon'ble Apex Court emphasizes that there is no fixed
formula for calculating maintenance amount; instead, it
should be based on a balanced consideration of various
factors. These factors include and are illustrative but are
not limited or exhaustive, they are adumbrated as under:
i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii.
Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children.
iii. Qualifications and employment status of the
parties.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by the
parties.
.....17/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
v. Maintain standard of living as in the
matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family
responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working
wife.
viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income,
maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
20. In the light of the above factors and in view of the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the facts of the
present case are taken into consideration, admittedly,
though the applicant has claimed that the non-applicant
is earning Rs.5.00 lacs, except her words, no evidence is
adduced by her. Her pleadings itself show that she is a
qualified lady and was doing job at Bangalore. Learned
Judge of the Family Court has rightly considered these
.....18/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
facts and granted alimony @ Rs.25000/- per month from
the date of order, till she remarried.
21. Ordinarily, the maintenance is to be granted from
the date of application. Therefore, only modification
required is, that she is entitled for grant of maintenance
(permanent alimony) from the date of the application.
22. As far as other reasoning of learned Judge of the
Family Court is concerned, the same sufficiently shows
that learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the
nature of the evidence. Considering the fact that the
applicant is educated lady and previously working at
Bangalore, no interference is called for as far as quantum
of amount is concerned.
23. In this view of the matter, the revision deserves to
be allowed only to the extent of modification of the order
granting maintenance from the date of application
.....19/-
Judgment
448 revn24.24
instead of from the date of order. Hence, I proceed to
pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Revision is Partly Allowed.
(2) The order dated 15.9.2023 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court No.4, Nagpur granting permanent alimony/
maintenance @ Rs.25000/- from the date of order is
modified as from the date of application i.e. from
4.8.2021, till the applicant remarries.
(3) Rest of the order passed by learned Judge of the
Family Court is maintained.
Revision stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 20/08/2025 10:47:21
