Bombay High Court
Satyanarayan Rampratap Baldi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 13 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:1108
corrected-40wp1428-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1428 OF 2024
Satyanarayan Rampratap Baldi, ... Petitioner
Age 69 years,Occu: Business,
R/o E-63, MIDC, Mehrun, Jalgoan
District Jalgaon
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sau. Rajkumari Satyanarayan Baldi, ... Respondents
Age 63 years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o E-63, MIDC, Mehrun, Jalgoan
District Jalgaon
Mr. Vijay Bhalerao Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent No.1 State
Mr. A. M. Siddiqui, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 13th January, 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of both the sides.
2. By the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner prays for quash and set aside Judgment and order
dated 05.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2023, thereby affirmed order dated
31.01.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court
corrected-40wp1428-24.odt
No.5 Jalgaon, wherein the present Petitioner/original opponent No.1
directed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards interim maintenance to the present
respondent No.2/aggrieved party from the date of application till its
decision.
3. It is not in dispute that, on 29.06.1980, marriage between Petitioner
and respondent No.2 solemnized at Ujjain (MP). Out of said matrimonial
relations, present Petitioner and respondent No.2 are blessed with two
male children. Respondent No.2/original applicant alleged that the
present petitioner/original opponent no.1 never took her care including
her ailment but She was subjected to domestic violence from beginning.
She is from well known family of Ujjain, whereas the present petitioner is
an industrialist and running industry namely S S Industries at Jalgaon,
which has turnover in crores of rupees per year. Besides this, the
Petitioner having various landed properties and drawing handsome
income.
4. Respondent No.2/aggrieved party further alleged that, during
pandemic of Covid 19, she was tested positive but the petitioner/her
husband has not taken her care. Since then she is spending measurable life
at the mercy of her brother. Therefore, she filed PWDVA No. 129 of 2021
and prayed for protection order. Respondent No.2/original applicant also
filed an application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.70,000/- per
corrected-40wp1428-24.odt
month to meet her daily needs and Medical expenses.
5. The present petitioner/original opponent no.1 filed reply and
strongly resisted application on ground that, he suffered huge loss in his
business and he has borrowed loan of Rs.2,42,32,000/- in order to
overcome from losses. Therefore, he requires to pay installment of Rs.3
lakhs per month. Under these circumstances, if he is directed to pay huge
amount of Rs.70,000/- per month, it will be excessive,hence, prayed for
rejection of the application.
6. On 31.01.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class passed an
order below Exh.1 and directed the present Petitioner/opponent No.1 to
pay Rs.30,000/- per month to Respondent No.2/aggrieved party from the
date of application till decision of the main application.
7. Being aggrieved by said order, the Respondent No.2 wife filed
Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2023, whereas the present Petitioner husband
filed Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2023 before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. On 5 th July, 2024, the learned Appellate Court
passed the impugned order holding that, the present petitioner/original
opponent no.1 is having sound financial position. The petitioner is an
Industrialist running a Company/Industrial Unit, which is having yearly
turnover in crores of rupees. Merely, the petitioner paying monthly
corrected-40wp1428-24.odt
installment of Rs.3 lakhs of the loan it would not disentitle the
respondent-wife to claim maintenance and affirmed the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, which does not appear to be
perverse, illegal and bad in law.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the
case of Shiv Kumar Singh Dagdusingh Thakur Vs. Malti Shiv Kumar Singh,
2011 (4) Bom. C.R. 161, wherein in paragraph Nos. 16 and 18, the
Division Bench of this court observed as under:
"16.Amount of maintenance is a matter of judicial discretion of
the Court. The expression maintenance ordinarily includes cost of
shelter, house, food, clothing, medical attention, etc. In the facts
of the present case, it can be said that the respondent wife was in
a position to have pleasure trips to Kerala etc. She admits that
she is contributing/participating in Bissi, i.e. a kitty of ladies.
However, she has given ceiling of Rs. 1500/-. Respondent wife
has clearly admitted, as we have referred, that she does have
some fixed deposits with some banks. Details have not been
furnished by her. This fact is within her special knowledge. The
conclusion can be safely arrived that some amount to the
knowledge of the respondent wife is with the Bank in fixed
deposits accruing some interest, payable to her.
18. We are of the view that a claim for maintenance may be
made by wife only where there is a refusal on the part of the
husband to maintain her and, therefore, she is living separately.
No case has been cited before us at bar where a claim for
maintenance has been considered to be valid even though wife is
staying in the protection of her husband under the same roof.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that the husband has not refused to maintain the wife who
is living with him. Therefore, it is not a fit case for considering
grant of maintenance."
corrected-40wp1428-24.odt
9. However, in case in hand, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
considered Income Tax Return (ITR) of the present petitioner for the year
2018-2019 as well as the affidavit of assets and liability produced at Exhs.
25 and 28 and granted interim maintenance in favour of the Respondent-
wife. On perusal of Reply filed by the present petitioner, it does not
suggest about disclosing net monthly income of the petitioner-husband.
On the contrary, it appears that, the petitioner is an industrialist and his
Company having yearly turnover in Crores of rupees. Therefore,
considering the fact that, the wife is required to maintain equal status of
her husband as well as daily needs and medical expenses of the
Respondent-wife, the learned JMFC passed the order of interim
maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month
and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, which does not appear to be
exorbitant, illegal, bad in law.
10. In view of the above discussion, present petition deserve to be
dismissed. Accordingly Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )
JPChavan
