Bombay High Court
Balasaheb S/O Nagnath Kharade vs Usha @ Lalita W/O Balasaheb Kharade on 30 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:20223
(1) crwp826.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
51 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 826 OF 2019
BALASAHEB S/O NAGNATH KHARADE
VERSUS
USHA @ LALITA W/O BALASAHEB KHARADE
Mr. V.M. Maney, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Krushna N. Bhosale h/f. Mr. A.T. Kanawade, Advocate for the
respondent.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 30.07.2025
PC :-
01. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This petition is
taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission by the consent of the
parties.
02. The petitioner No.1 happens to be husband of the
respondent. Petitioner No.2 is father of petitioner No.1. The petitioners
have come to this Court challenging judgment and order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 12.03.2019, passed in
PWDV Appeal No. 46 of 2015, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by
respondent-wife and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the
learned JMFC, Ausa, Dist. Latur dated 04.11.2015 in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 22 of 2013. It is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/-
(2) crwp826.19
per month towards maintenance, Rs. 500/- per month towards house
rent, Rs. 1000/- towards proceeding costs and Rs. 15,000/- towards
compensation to the wife. It is further directed to the petitioner to
restrain from committing acts of domestic violence.
03. The wife had filed application under section 12 of the
Domestic Violence Act. It is her case that the parties married on
05.10.2003. The father of the wife spent huge amount in the marriage
and gave Rs.80,000/- and 20 grams gold in dowry with some utensils to
the husband. After one year of the marriage, it is alleged that the in-
laws started harassing the wife, saying that they did not get sufficient
amount in dowry. It is alleged that she was kept starved. She was given
shock by gas lighter. She was always threatened by showing revolver.
She was also given threats that she will be set on fire. It is alleged that
on 13.07.2008 the in-laws assaulted her mercilessly and it was tried to
set her on fire. She could escape herself with great difficulties from the
in-laws and since then she is living with her parents. There were
attempts to see that the parties co-habit together. However, in the
settlement meetings also there was no response from the in-laws and
they demanded some amount for settlement. She was required to file
complaint under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code bearing RCC
(3) crwp826.19
No.36 of 2009. On such allegations, she prayed for various reliefs
including share in the property.
04. The learned JMFC on recording evidence rejected the
application. It is held, on the basis of the evidence, that the wife is
staying with her parents since 28.09.2005 and since thereafter they have
never stayed together. There is already divorce given by the husband by
filing HMP No. 47 of 2008. Thus, on the date of filing the HMP
proceeding, there was no domestic relationship. On this count the
complaint came to be rejected. The learned Sessions Judge, however,
partly allowed the revision. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge
that mere admission of wife and her father in the cross-examination is
not sufficient to disbelieve the pleading of wife. The wife would not leave
house of her husband without any compelling circumstances. He thus
allowed the appeal partly.
05. Learned Advocate Mr. Maney for the petitioners vehemently
argued that the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error by
allowing the appeal and by setting aside the well reasoned judgment of
the learned JMFC. He submits that when there is overwhelming evidence
on record to show that since 28.09.2005, there is no co-habitation and
(4) crwp826.19
the parties are admittedly residing separately, there is no question of
granting any relief. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge are
perverse and requires to be set aside.
06. Learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. Bhosale vehemently
opposes the petition. He submits that the Domestic Violence Act is a
piece of welfare legislation. It is aimed at providing relief to women.
Learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated that mere admission by
wife would not disentitle her from praying for any relief. Learned
Advocate for the respondent relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal
Manoori and Anr., reported in 2015 ALL M.R. (Cri) 2912 and
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sri Krishnendu Das
Thakur Vs. TheState of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 3566 of 2018).
07. This Court has heard the parties and seen that in the
judgment, the learned JMFC has clearly observed that the parties are
residing separately since 2005, no reason is coming from the wife as to
why she started residing separately. It is further observed that though in
her application, she has quoted incident of 13.07.2008, it is admitted fact
that on that day she was staying with her parents. The learned JMFC
(5) crwp826.19
discussed the evidence wherein wife and her father admitted that she is
staying separate. It is also considered that there is divorce between the
parties. Learned Sessions Judge, however, has observed that such
admission would not affect the case of the wife. He drawn inference that
no wife would leave husband's house without compelling circumstances.
However, no such circumstance is shown by the wife as discussed by the
learned Sessions Judge. On the face of it, it is clear that no act of
domestic violence is proved. The husband and in-laws are even
acquitted from the offence under section 498-A of the IPC. The learned
Sessions Judge has even failed to appreciate in proper perspective that
the decree of divorce is ex-parte decree and therefore the Court did not
give much importance to the decree. It needs to be seen that ex-parte
decree of divorce is not challenged by the wife. As of now it is informed
that the wife has performed second marriage in 2021.
08. In the present case it is clearly seen that the wife has utterly
failed to prove any single incident of domestic violence. It is also a
matter of record that since 2005, she is residing separately. In her
application, she has quoted the incident of the year 2008. In such
circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has certainly committed
mistake in allowing the appeal.
(6) crwp826.19
09. Therefore, The impugned judgment and order dated
12.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in
PWDV Appeal No. 46 of 2015 is set aside.
10. The Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and is
disposed off with no order as to costs.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2025/jul25/crwp826.19
