Ajay Baburao Sonawane vs Pooja W/O Ajay Sonawane And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4065 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ajay Baburao Sonawane vs Pooja W/O Ajay Sonawane And Another on 19 June, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:15473


                                                             Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2022

                 Ajay Baburao Sonawane
                 Age: 42 years, Occupation: Labour,
                 R/o. Galli No.4, Near Hanuman Nagar,
                 Aurangabad                                      ... APPLICANT

                       VERSUS

                 1]    Pooja W/o Ajay Sonawane
                       Age: 30 years, Occupation: Household

                 2]    Kum. Tanishka D/o Ajay Sonawane
                       Age: 6 years, Occupation: Nil,
                       (Under guardianship of the respondent No.1)
                       Both R/o. C/o. Raju Gabaji Nikam,
                       Maratha High School, Chauraha,
                       Aurangabad                          ... RESPONDENTS
                                                 ....
                 Mr. R. N. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Applicant
                 Mr. R. P. Karhadkar, Advocate for the Respondents
                                                 ....

                                     CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

                             RESERVED ON : 12.06.2025
                         PRONOUNCED ON : 19.06.2025
                 JUDGMENT :

-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent

of both the sides, it is heard finally at the stage of admission.

1 of 10 (( 2 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

2. The present revision application under Section 19 of the

Family Courts Act, is directed against the judgment and order dated

10.01.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad

in Petition No.234 of 2018, whereby the learned Family Court partly

allowed the petition and directed the original non-applicant husband

to pay Rs.7,500/- p.m. to each applicants from the date of filing of the

petition i.e. 03.12.2018 with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

3. The present applicant is the original non-applicant and

the present non-applicants are the original applicants in Petition

No.234 of 2018 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. For the sake of

brevity, I would like to refer parties to the present revision in their

original capacity as applicants wife, daughter and non-applicant

husband.

4. In nutshell, undisputed facts are that, on 16.05.2015, the

marriage between the applicant No.1 and non-applicant solemnized

in Suvarnashilp Mangal Karyalaya, Aurangabad. Out of their

matrimonial relations, on 12.09.2016, they blessed with applicant

No.2. minor daughter. The applicant No.1 alleged that, at the time of

2 of 10 (( 3 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

marriage, her parents incurred huge expenses and also gifted

domestic articles i.e. 5 tola gold ornaments and some silver

ornaments, Her parents also provided Rs.2,11,000/- as dowry. After

marriage, she cohabited with her husband non-applicant in the joint

family. However, later on, the non-applicant husband raised demand

of Rs.5,00,000/- to start Goldsmith business and threatened to give

domestic violence if she fails to fulfill the said demand. It is further

alleged that in the month of April 2018, her parents also gave

Rs.1,30,000/- to the non-applicant, however, she was subjected to

physical and mental cruelty by the non-applicant and his family

members. Further, she was also tortured mentally and physically

because she delivered the female child applicant No.2. The applicant

No.1 further alleged that, in the month of September 2015, the non-

applicant had raised demand of Rs.10,000/-which was fulfilled by her

parents in the month of November 2015. But, again in the month of

January 2016, she was subjected cruelty for not providing silver

bowls and spoons on the eve of Makar-Sankrant. It further alleged

that, when she was carrying seven months pregnancy, the non-

applicant dropped her at her parental house for delivery, but

subsequently the non-applicant never taken her for cohabitation. On

3 of 10 (( 4 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

30.07.2018, the non-applicant mercilessly beaten her and tried to

finish her life, therefore, she lodged N.C. report No.975 of 2018 with

Pundliknagar Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C. On 02.08.2018 she

also lodged a complaint with Mahila Grievances cell. Thereafter, on

07.08.2018, the non-applicant instituted Petition No.A-359 of 2018

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for decree of

restitution of conjugal right.

5. The applicant no. 1 further contended that she has no

source of income and the non-applicant neglected to maintain her

and her child. The non-applicant is running Goldsmith Shop named

and style as "Shree Gurukrupa Jewellers" and drawing monthly

income of Rs.50,000/-. The non-applicant having no any other

liabilities as his father is receiving pension of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and

rental income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Therefore, she is entitled for

monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/-.

6. After service of notice, the non-applicant filed his reply at

Exh.9 and denied allegations made against him. According to the

non-applicant husband, after marriage, the applicant No.1 cohabited

4 of 10 (( 5 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

with him for 8 to 10 days from the date of marriage. However, later

on she quarreled with him and his family members without any

reason. So also, the applicant No.1 was not performing her domestic

work and she was not liking him. Lastly, the applicant No.1 left for

her parental house when she was carrying seven months pregnancy,

but she never returned to him for cohabitation. Therefore, the

applicant is not entitled for any maintenance, hence, prayed for

dismissal of the revision application.

7. Since the applicant No.1 wife filed a proceeding under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the non-applicant had filed Petition No.A-359

of 2018 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of

conjugal rights, therefore, on 15.01.2021, the learned Family Court,

Aurangabad, clubbed both the matters together. The non-applicant

husband filed evidence affidavit. The applicant No.1 wife filed

evidence affidavit in Petition No.234 of 2018. In order to avoid

repetition, the learned trial court dealt evidence in both matters

together.

8. On 10.01.2022, the learned Family Court passed the

impugned common Judgment in Petition No.A-359 of 2018 and

5 of 10 (( 6 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

Petition No.234 of 2018. The learned trial Court dismissed the

Petition No.A-359 of 2018 filed by the non-applicant husband under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, however, petition filed by the

applicant wife bearing No.E-234 of 2018 partly allowed and directed

the non-applicant husband to pay Rs.7,500/- p.m. towards

maintenance to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 from the date of the

application.

9. In the present application, only issue about quantum of

maintenance is involved. In order to ascertain quantum of

maintenance, it is necessary to peruse evidence of the applicant No.1

wife and the non-applicant husband insisted of adverting other facts

as those subsistence of matrimonial relations are not in dispute.

10. Needless to say that the applicant No.1 wife made

averment that, her husband non-applicant is running "Shree

Gurukrupa Jewellery" shop since last 15 years and drawing income of

Rs.50,000/- p.m. On the other hand, the non-applicant husband filed

his reply at Exh.9 and stated that he is doing labour work in the

Jewellery Shop. His old aged parents are depend on his income.

Therefore, he is unable to pay the maintenance to the applicants.

6 of 10 (( 7 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

11. The applicant No.1 wife has filed evidence affidavit at

Exh.10 and reiterated pleadings raised in the application. In cross

examination, the applicant admitted that, though she deposed about

running goldsmith shop by her husband since last 15 years, but she

has not produced any documentary evidence to that effect. So also,

she has not produced any rent receipt to show that the non-applicant

is having income from house rent.

12. The non-applicant husband has filed his evidence

affidavit at Exh.14 in Petition No.A-359 of 2018. He stated that, on

30.07.2017, in midnight at about 1.30 a.m. to 2.00 a.m., after having

fight with his wife, she left his house with his minor daughter and did

not return.

13. In cross examination, it has brought on record that at

about 9.00 a.m., he used to leave his house and returns at about 9.30

p.m. The non-applicant husband voluntarily stated that, he is doing

labour work in a goldsmith shop i.e. M/s Mundlik Jewellers,

Osmanpura, Gurudwara Road, Aurangabad and drawing Rs.250/- to

Rs.350/- per day.

7 of 10 (( 8 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

14. In the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey

Chowdhary Nee Nandy; (2017) 14 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that, the wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs.25% of the

income of her husband.

15. The applicant No.1 wife has made oral statement that the

non-applicant husband is running "Shree Gurukrupa Jewellary" shop.

But she failed to produce copy of license issued under the Bombay

Shops and Establishment Act to prove that the non-applicant husband

is running said jewellery shop.

16. Per contra, it has brought in the cross examination that

the applicant is working as a labour in "Mundlik Jewellers". He is

having PAN card and submitting the income tax returns. In the matter

of record that, neither the applicant wife nor the non-applicant

husband have filed affidavit disclosing their assets and liabilities as

per the law laid down in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others;

MANU/SC/0833/2020. Therefore, considering all these facts and

circumstance, the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, it can be easily

gathered that, the applicant is drawing monthly income to the tune of

Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/-. Therefore, considering the ratio down in the

8 of 10 (( 9 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary, cited (supra), it will be just and

proper to direct the non-applicant husband to pay Rs.6,500/- per

month toward maintenance of the petitioner-wife. Apart from this,

the non-applicant husband is required to maintain his daughter who

is six years old and now she is school going student. Therefore,

considering the daily needs and hike of prices of essential

commodities, the applicant No.2 daughter is entitled for maintenance

of Rs.3,000/- p.m., excluding educational expenses.

17. In view of above discussion, the impugned order needs to

be modified to the extent of quantum of maintenance. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 10.01.2022 to the extent of quantum of maintenance granted in favour of the original applicants/present non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, is modified as under:-

(iii) The non-applicant No.1 wife/original applicant No.1 is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,500/- p.m. and non-applicant No.2/original applicant No.2 minor daughter is entitled for maintenance at the rate of

9 of 10 (( 10 )) Cri-Revn-Apln-97-2022-Judgment

Rs.3,000/- p.m. from the date of application i.e. 03.12.2018 till she attains the age of 12 years. Thereafter the minor will entitle for maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The applicant /original non-applicant husband is hereby directed to pay the same.

(iv) In addition, the applicant / original non-applicant husband shall bear educational expenses of the minor daughter including school fees, tuition fees and all other educational expenses. The applicant/original non- applicant shall bear the marriage expenses of the applicant no. 2.

(v) The applicant/original non-applicant husband shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges to the non- applicants.

(vi) Record and proceedings be remitted back to the trial Court.

(vii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]

SMS

10 of 10