Bombay High Court

Pradnya Shrikant Mule And Another vs Shrikant Gabaji Mule on 16 July, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:6816




              Judgment

                                                             432 revn123.23



                                          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2023

              1. Pradnya Shrikant Mule,
              aged about 38 years, occupation: homemaker.

              2. Ravi Shrikant Mule,
              through legal guardian mother,
              aged about: 9 years,occupation - student.

              Both r/o Shantaram Pargharmor Renuka
              Nagar Dabki Road, Akola.       ..... Applicants.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              Shrikant Gabaji Mule,
              aged about -42 years, occupation service,
              r/o c/o Chandrashekhar Patil Wardhaman
              Nagar Jammer,
              R/o "Shrawasti", Jain Nagda Society,
              near water tank, Khamgaon,
              tahsil Khamgaon, district Buldhana. ..... Non-applicant.

              Shri Nitin Munghate, Counsel for Applicants.
              None for the Non-applicant.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 10/07/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 16/07/2025

              JUDGMENT

.....2/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

1. Applicant No.1, who is wife, and applicant No.2,

who is son, of the non-applicant has filed application

bearing Application No.E-64/2021 under Section 125 of

the CrPC for grant of maintenance before learned Judge of

the Family Court at Akola. On 20.3.2023, the said

application came to be allowed directing the non-applicant

to pay Rs.12,000/- and Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance to

applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 respectively from the

date of filing of the application and Rs.25,000/- towards

costs.

2. Being dissatisfied with the maintenance granted by

learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola, the applicants

have filed this revision for enhancement of maintenance.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Applicant No.1 and the non-applicant are wife and

husband. Their marriage was performed on 1.7.2012.

.....3/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

After the marriage, the applicant/wife resumed

cohabitation at the house of the non-applicant/husband.

From their wedlock, she gave birth to a son, who is now 9

years old. As per the contention of the applicant/wife,

after the marriage, she was ill-treated by the non-

applicant/husband and his family members. On the

instigation of other family members, the

non-applicant/husband used to ill-treat her and,

therefore, she was constrained to leave her matrimonial

house and take shelter at the house of her parents. After

she left the matrimonial house, the

non-applicant/husband has not made any provision for

her maintenance and, therefore, she was dependent upon

income of her parents. The non-applicant/husband filed

an application Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for

restitution of conjugal rights before learned CJSD,

Khamgaon bearing Marriage Petition No.125/2015.

.....4/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

Subsequently, the said petition was transferred to the

Family Court at Akola and registered as Petition No.A-

141/2017. At the same time, the applicant/wife filed a

proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act. The proceeding was

partly allowed and learned JMFC at Akola in

Misc.Criminal Case No.1682/2015 granted maintenance

@ Rs.3000/- per month to the applicant/wife and

Rs.2000 to applicant/son. The applicant/wife and the

non-applicant/husband both filed appeals before learned

Additional Sessions Judge at Akola and learned

Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal

No.128/2016 enhanced amount of maintenance @

Rs.5000/- per month to the applicant/wife and Rs.3000/-

per month to the applicant/son. Despite of the said order

of enhancing the maintenance amount, the non-

applicant/husband did not pay the amount of the

.....5/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

maintenance. In the meanwhile, the matter was settled

between the parties and as per the terms of compromise

dated 22.1.2018, the applicants agreed to reside with the

non-applicant/husband at Mumbai and the non-

applicant/husband was supposed to make arrangement of

school admission of the applicant/son, but the non-

applicant/husband has not complied with the terms and

conditions of the settlement and did not provide the basic

facilities to the applicants. The non-applicant/husband,

only to avoid the payment of maintenance, settled the

matter before the Family Court and insisted the applicant/

wife to make statement that she is leading her happy life

with him and the matter was withdrawn before the Lok

Adalat. However, as the non-applicant/husband has not

provided basic facilities and also not made arrangement

of the school admission of the applicant/son, the

applicant/wife was constrained to file petition for

.....6/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC before the

Family Court at Akola. The non-applicant/husband also

filed petition bearing Petition No.A-194/2018 for

dissolution of marriage wherein interim maintenance was

granted to the applicant/wife @ Rs.6000/- per month, till

final disposal of the petition.

4. The Application No.E-64/2021 for grant of

maintenance filed by the applicants was decided by the

learned Judge of the Family Court granting maintenance @

Rs.12,000/- to the applicant/wife and Rs.8,000/- to the

applicant/son from the date of filing of the application and

with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said

order of maintenance, the present revision is filed for

enhancement of maintenance on the ground that amount

of Rs.20,000/- is inadequate to lead the life as per the

.....7/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

status of the non-applicant/husband. The non-applicant/

husband is serving in LIC and drawing salary of

Rs.85,000/- per month. Besides the salary, he owns

agricultural land and is getting income of Rs.10.00 Lacs

per annum. As per the contention of the applicant/wife,

he owns his own house in the name of his mother. His

father was serving in police department and owns

agricultural land at Seoni, Akola. Except the applicants,

no other family members are dependents on him and,

therefore, the amount of maintenance deserves to be

enhanced and, therefore, by this revision the applicants

are claiming enhanced amount of maintenance.

6. Despite service of the notice and engaging counsel,

none appeared to make submissions on behalf of the non-

applicant/husband.

.....8/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

7. Learned counsel Shri Nitin Munghate for the

applicants submitted that learned Judge of the Family

Court has not considered the income of the non-

applicant/husband and granted inadequate maintenance.

The applicant/wife has to incur the expenses towards

education of the applicant/son, house rent, and food and

clothing etc. The amount granted by learned Judge of the

Family Court towards maintenance is inadequate and not

sufficient to lead life as per the status of the non-

applicant/husband. The non-applicant/husband is

serving in LIC and staying in his own house and drawing

handsome salary. Learned Judge of the Family Court has

not considered the same. The assets and liabilities given

by the non-applicant/husband before the Family Court

show that he has sufficient means of income and he is

able to give a separate maintenance to the applicants. His

monthly income shown in the assets and liabilities is

.....9/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

Rs.56,688/-, as per the salary certificate for the month of

June 2022. The prices of the essential commodities are

touching to the sky and the expenses to be incurred as to

the education of her child is also rising day by day and,

therefore, for all above these reasons, the amount of

maintenance requires to be enhanced.

8. On hearing learned counsel for the applicants and

perusing of the entire record, it is not disputed that

initially the applicant/wife has filed an application under

the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act wherein learned JMFC at Akola granted

maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month to the

applicant/wife and Rs.2000 to applicant/son, which came

to be enhanced by learned Additional Sessions Judge at

Akola in Criminal Appeal No.128/2016 directing to pay

Rs.5000/- per month to the applicant/wife and Rs.3000/-

.....10/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

per month to the applicant/son. It is also not disputed

that the non-applicant/husband filed a petition for

dissolution of marriage wherein also the interim alimony

@ Rs.6000/- per month was granted to the applicant/wife

by the Family Court, till disposal of the petition. The said

petition was disposed of finally on 24.1.2020. Thus, from

24.1.2020 to 20.3.2023 she received interim alimony @

Rs.6000 per month in addition to the maintenance

granted to the applicants by learned Additional Sessions

Judge at Akola. Subsequent to that, the applicant/wife

had filed an application bearing Application No.E-64/2021

under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance

before learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola. On

20.3.2023, the said application came to be allowed

directing the non-applicant to pay Rs.12,000/- and

Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance to applicant No.1 and

applicant No.2 respectively from the date of filing of the

.....11/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

application and Rs.25,000/- towards costs. Being

aggrieved with the same, the present revision is filed by

the applicants. The applicant/wife has adduced the

evidence before the Family Court.

9. The only issue to be looked into is, whether the

applicants are entitled for enhancement of the

maintenance amount.

10. As per the evidence of the applicant/wife, the non-

applicant/husband is drawing salary of Rs.85000/- and

also getting income from the agricultural land. As far as

the evidence by adduced by her is concerned, she placed

reliance on the salary slip of June 2022 which shows

gross earning of the non-applicant/husband is

Rs.84,243/- and after deduction, he is drawing salary of

Rs.56,688/-.

.....12/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

As far as the income from the agricultural land is

concerned, the agricultural land is standing in the name

of father of the non-applicant/husband. Though the

applicant/wife has stated that the non-applicant/husband

is getting income of Rs.10.00 lacs from the said

agricultural land, the said aspect is not proved by her by

adducing any evidence. Learned Judge of the Family

Court has considered that the non-applicant/husband is

drawing salary of Rs.56,688/-. He is also getting an

income from the agricultural land. Learned Judge of the

Family Court granted amount @ Rs.12,000/- and @

Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance to applicant No.1 and

applicant No.2 respectively from the date of filing of the

application. Thus, the applicants are getting total

maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month.

.....13/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

In addition to that, as per order of learned

Additional Sessions Judge at Akola in Criminal Appeal

No.128/2016, the applicant/wife is getting enhanced

amount of maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month and the

applicant/son is getting @ Rs.3000/- per month.

Thus, the applicant/wife is getting total amount of

m @ Rs.17000/- per month and applicant/son is getting @

Rs.11,000/- per month.

11. Perusal of the evidence on record as well as the

judgment and order impugned in the revision shows that

the learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the

income of non-applicant/husband and also considered that

the applicants are getting maintenance as per the order of

learned Additional Sessions Judge at Akola in other

proceedings.

.....14/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

12. It is true that the applicants are entitled to lead

their lives as per their status.

13. In the case of Rinku Baheti Vs. Sandesh Sharda,

reported in MANU/SC/1374/2024, the Hon'ble Apex

Court 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 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

.....15/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

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

.....16/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

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. 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

.....17/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

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. In another decision in Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs.

Paramvir Parmar, reported in (2011)9 SCR 371, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held as that 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

.....18/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

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

subsistence of the marriage, among other supplementary

factors.

16. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in

(2021)2 SCC 324, elaborating 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

.....19/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

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.

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/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

17. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha supra the Hon'ble

Apex Court, while considering the right of the wife to

claim maintenance under various enactments, held 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

maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil

court/family court shall take into account the

.....21/-