Bombay High Court

Krishna S/O Suresh Khairnar And 2 Others vs Revati W/O Krishna Khairnar on 17 July, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:6867




              Judgment

                                                       434 revn116 & 118.24



                                          1

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

                    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2024
                                        AND
                    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2024


              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2024
              Krishna s/o Suresh Khairnar,
              aged about 44 years, occupation service,
              r/o plot No.19, Jai Bajrang Society,
              behind Manav Seva Nagar, Seminary
              Hills, Nagpur-440 006.               ..... Applicant.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              Revati w/o Krishna Khairnar,
              aged about 42 years, occupation housewife,
              r/o c/o Shri Madhukarrao Deotare,
              Balkrishna Nagar, near old MHADA
              colony, Wardha.                  ..... Non-applicant.


              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2024
              1. Krishna s/o Suresh Khairnar,
              aged about 45 years, occupation service.

              2. Suresh Deorao Khairnar, aged about
              74 years, occupation social work.

              3. Indu w/o Suresh Khairnar, aged
              about 72 years, occupation housewife,
                                                                    .....2/-
 Judgment

                                         434 revn116 & 118.24



                           2

All r/o plot No.90, Jai Bajrang
Society, behind Manav Seva Nagar,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440 006.          Applicants.

                    :: V E R S U S ::

Revati w/o Krishna Khairnar,
aged about 42 years, occupation housewife,
r/o c/o Shri Madhukarrao Deotare,
Balkrishna Nagar, near old MHADA
colony, Wardha.                  ..... Non-applicant.

Shri P.D.Meghe, Counsel for Applicants.
Mrs.Shiba Thakur, Counsel and Shri Amit Thakur, Advocate
for the Non-applicant.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 03/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17/07/2025

COMMON JUDGMENT

1. By these revisions, the applicants have challenged

judgment and order dated 6.4.2024 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in PWDVA Appeal

Nos.15 and 16/2020 by which the appeal of the non-

applicant/wife was allowed enhancing maintenance @

.....3/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

Rs.15000/- per month from the date of filing of the appeal

and appeal of the applicant/husband was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the proceedings necessary for disposal

of the revisions are as under:

Applicant Krishna got married with non-applicant

Revati on 6.7.2008. At the time of the marriage, he was

serving in Canada as Scientist Officer. Initially, he could

not take his wife along with him as she was not

possessing Passport and Visa. For her Visa, her mother

incurred expenses Rs.80,000/-. After she resumed

cohabitation with the applicant at Canada, she was

restrained from communicating with her parents and

neighbours and to go outside. During the said wedlock,

she begotten two daughters. As per the allegations, she

was ill-treated by locking her in car and abusing her on

the road and, therefore, she was constrained to leave the

.....4/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

matrimonial house and returned to India. She filed an

application before the JMFC for grant of relief under

Sections 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act bearing Application

No.345/2013.

3. The said application is strongly opposed by the

applicant/husband on the ground that with the baseless

and false allegations, the false application is filed. It was

the non-applicant/wife who was not willing to reside

along with the applicant and, therefore, she left

matrimonial home and started residing at her parental

house. As far as relief of maintenance is concerned, it is

contention of the applicant/husband that the non-

applicant/wife is working as Physiotherapist and earning

for her livelihood. She is able to maintain herself.

Therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

.....5/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

4. After recording the evidence and hearing both the

sides, learned JMFC granted maintenance to the non-

applicant/wife and her two daughters at the rate of

Rs.5000/- each from the date of the application. In

addition to that, Rs.3000/- towards house rent and

Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000 towards

costs were granted to her.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the

applicant/husband and the non-applicant/wife preferred

appeals. The applicant/husband has challenged the order

of learned JMFC on the ground that order granting

maintenance is excessive and exorbitant as the non-

applicant/wife is having sufficient means. Whereas, the

non-applicant/wife preferred an appeal for enhancement.

The appellate court observed that the applicant/husband

is serving as Scientist Officer and getting handsome

.....6/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

income and the non-applicant/wife has every right to lead

her life as per status of her husband and, therefore,

enhanced the amount of maintenance @ Rs.15000/- per

month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing of

the appeal. The appeal of the applicant/husband was

dismissed being devoid of merits.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the

present revisions are filed by the husband.

7. Heard learned counsel Shri P.D.Meghe for the

applicant/husband and learned counsel Mrs.Shiba Thakur

for the non-applicant/wife.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband

submitted that the judgment and order passed by learned

Judge below is erroneous and enhanced maintenance is

excessive and exorbitant without considering the evidence

that the non-applicant/wife is Physiotherapist by

.....7/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

profession and earning her livelihood and, therefore, she

is not dependent on the applicant/husband. In view of

that, the judgment and order passed by the appellate

court in PWDVA Appeal No.16/2020 deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for

the applicant/husband placed reliance on following

decisions:

1. Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, reported in 2000 SCC OnLine MP 580, and

2. Rajnesh vs. Neha and anr, reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, and3.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/

wife submitted that as a time gap arrangement, the non-

applicant/wife was working as Physiotherapist, but

subsequently, she was constrained to stop the work and

.....8/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

now she is jobless. She further submitted that at present

she has no source of income. Whereas, the

applicant/husband is serving as Scientist Officer and

drawing salary of Rs.65000/- per month. He is able

bodied person. The non-applicant/wife has to incur

expenses towards education of her two daughters,

towards their maintenance and towards day to day

activities. In view of that, the revisions being devoid of

merits are liable to be dismissed.

11. On hearing both the sides, it revealed that

matrimonial relationship between the non-applicant/wife

and the applicant/husband is not disputed. It is also not

disputed that from the said wedlock two daughters are

begotten. The non-applicant/wife has alleged domestic

violence at the hands of the applicant/husband. She has

also lodged the complaint under Section 498A against the

.....9/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

applicant/husband bearing RCC No.300958/2015.

During her evidence, she narrated regarding abuses and

ill-treatment at the hands of the applicant/husband. She

is cross examined at length. As far as evidence regarding

the domestic violence is concerned, the same is not

shattered during the cross examination.

12. By these revisions, the quantum of maintenance is

only challenged by the applicant/husband.

13. During cross examination, the non-applicant/wife

admitted that she is graduate in Physiotherapy and she

has obtained the licence to give treatment of

Physiotherapy. An attempt was also made to show that

her mother is teacher and incurring expenses towards the

maintenance of the non-applicant/wife and her

daughters. The applicant/husband has also adduced the

evidence and stated that the non-applicant/wife is

.....10/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

Physiotherapist by profession and having sufficient means

to lead her life and, therefore, the order passed by the

appellate court for grant of maintenance at enhanced rate

is excessive and exorbitant one. The non-applicant/wife

has also adduced evidence by examining her parents who

have supported her contentions. The cross examination

of the non-applicant/wife shows that the

applicant/husband has taken her at various places in

Canada, but that aspect only is insufficient to show that

she was not subjected for domestic violence. Her specific

contentions, that there were restrictions on her in

communicating with her parents and neighbours and she

was confined in the house, are supported by her parents.

Thus, as far as domestic violence is concerned, there is

sufficient material on record.

.....11/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

14. Now, only question is that whether the appellate

court committed error in enhancing the maintenance

amount.

15. It is undisputed that the applicant/husband is a

qualified person and serving as Scientist Officer. The

evidence on record shows that at the relevant time, in the

year 2013, when the evidence was recorded, he was

drawing salary of Rs.65000/-, after all deductions.

Though the non-applicant/wife possesses degree of

Physiotherapist, no evidence is on record to show that she

is earning sufficient amount to maintain herself as well as

to maintain her two daughters. Admittedly, she has to

incur expenses towards the school education of her two

daughters, their day to day needs, clothing, rented house,

as well as she has to maintain herself as per the status of

the applicant/husband. Therefore, the amount of

.....12/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

enhanced maintenance granted by the appellate court is

legal and proper one.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Rinku

Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda, reported in

MANU/SC/1374/2024, in paragraph No.14.5 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 wealth of the spouse has

.....13/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

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

.....14/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?"

17. The law with respect to deciding the amount of

permanent alimony is settled by the various decisions of

the Hon'ble Apex Court.

18. 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

.....15/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

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."

14. In another decision in Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs.

Paramvir Parmar (2011)9 SCR 371, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held 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

.....16/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

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.

19. 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

.....17/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

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.

.....18/-

Judgment

434 revn116 & 118.24

20. In the light of the above factors narrated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, if the facts of the present case are

taken into consideration, the appellate court has

enhanced the maintenance to the non-applicant/wife @

Rs.15000/- per month which is not excessive and

exorbitant in the light of the facts that she has to maintain

two daughters, their education, and their daily needs

when the prices of essential commodities are touching to

the sky. The applicant/husband is having sufficient

means. Merely because the wife is earning for her

livelihood some amount, that by itself is not sufficient to

deny her any further maintenance. The

non-applicant/wife was residing along with her husband

and was leading the life as per the status of her husband,

and therefore, her comfort, considering the status of the

husband and other needs, are to be taken into

consideration. Nowadays, the prices of the essential

.....19/-