Bombay High Court
Balram Lekhram Sharma vs Sonia Balram Sharma on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31828
REVB-212-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2024
Mr. Balram s/o Lekhram Sharma,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o - Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Hospital,
2, New Delhi Gate, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002 ...Applicant
Versus
Ms. Sonia w/o Balram Sharma,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Education & Household,
R/o - C/o. Dharmendra Bhupsingh Sharma,
Dattanagar, Plot No. 04, Satara Parisar,
Beed-By-Pass, Aurangabad - 431 001. ...Respondent
***
• Mr. A. G. Talhar, Advocate for the Applicant
• Mr. A. N. Sabnis, Advocate for the Respondent
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 19, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 20, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Present Revisionist, who is husband of Respondent, is taking
exception to the judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed in
Application No. E-253/2022 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Aurangabad.
2. Background in nutshell giving rise to the revision are as under:
Present respondent-wife, who was married to revisionist on
22.04.2016, instituted proceedings under Section 125 Code of Criminal
Umesh PAGE 1 OF 6
REVB-212-2024.odt
Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance from husband on the ground of
being neglected to maintain. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Aurangabad, vide judgment dated 21.05.2024 after hearing the parties held
that it was proved that respondent was willfully neglected and was refused
to the maintain by husband and as such, she being unable to maintain
herself and revisionist-husband having sufficient means to maintain her is
liable to pay maintenance @ of Rs. 15,000/- from the date of application,
which was in addition to the earlier maintenance granted in PWDVA Case
No. 437/2017 delivered on 15.09.2023.
Dissatisfied by the above order of learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, revisionist-husband has questioned the same by filing instant
revision.
3. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist would point out that
admittedly parties were married in 2016. Thereafter, according to him,
several proceedings were instituted by wife including Domestic Violence Act
proceedings as well as lodging FIR under penal sections. He submitted that
parties have already obtained divorce and as such, no relations subsist
between them. He further submitted that wife instituted proceedings before
Family Court by invoking section 125 Cr.P.C and sought maintenance even
when she was highly qualified and able bodied and capable of earning.
According to him, in fact she is already beneficiary of Rs. 35,000/- from the
Umesh PAGE 2 OF 6
REVB-212-2024.odt
Court which has dealt her proceedings under Domestic Violence Act. He
pointed out that in spite of so, vide impugned judgment directions are
issued to the revisionist-husband to pay additional amount of Rs 15,000/-.
This, according to him, is the illegality and error on the part of trial Court
and so he seeks indulgence of this Court.
4. In answer to above, learned counsel for Respondent-wife would
submit that marriage was not disputed and even aspect of divorce is also not
disputed. However, according to him, divorced wife is entitled to be
maintained when she has no sufficient means. He pointed out that law is
fairly settled that wife is entitled to institute proceedings under both
Domestic Violence Act as well as under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and she is
entitled to seek maintenance when there is neglect to maintain her and
when she has no independent source for survival. Thus, he justifies the
order of the Family Court and urges to dismiss the Revision Application.
5. The short point involves in this revision is that whether in
addition to any maintenance received in domestic violence proceedings,
wife is entitled to maintain proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C and seek
maintenance.
Before answering above question, it would be desirable to give
short account of facts involved in the case. Present revisionist and
respondent are husband and wife respectively who seems to have got
Umesh PAGE 3 OF 6
REVB-212-2024.odt
married on 22.04.2016. According to respondent-wife, barely after a month
or so she was maltreated, deprived from marital pleasures and there was
demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which later compelled her to file FIR. Apart from
it, she also filed Application no. 155/2017 seeking maintenance and later on
compromise seems to have taken place between the parties. However, again
there were volley of allegations about being taken and kept at Bhilwara,
Rajasthan and husband leaving her company and residing in Delhi.
According to respondent-wife, she was pressurized to sign proceeding of
divorce under mutual consent in the Court of Rajasthan. That, as there was
some incidence of confining and subjecting to cruelty, she came back to her
parents place at Aurangabad. However, as she had no means and as was
being neglected from being maintained, she instituted proceedings by
invoking provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 bearing no. 437/2017 and vide order dated 15.09.2023, revisionist
was directed to pay her amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance
and Rs. 10,000/- towards rent and thereby she stood beneficiary to the tune
of Rs. 35,000/- towards maintenance and rent.
6. Again she instituted Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings bearing no.
E-253/2022 seeking further maintenance. After hearing both sides, learned
Principal Judge, family Court, Aurangabad has passed impugned order that
in addition to earlier Rs. 35,000/-, revisionist should pay Rs. 15,000/- more
Umesh PAGE 4 OF 6
REVB-212-2024.odt
and such order is precisely taken exception to.
7. Only ground agitated while preferring revision is that, parties
are divorced and secondly, wife is already receiving maintenance under
PWDVA proceedings and, therefore, learned Family Court ought not to have
granted additional maintenance. According to learned Counsel for
revisionist the same is not permissible.
8. There is no substance in above submissions. In fact, a divorced
wife can definitely maintain proceedings both under Section 125 Cr.P.C as
well as under Domestic Violence Act as both provide for distinct cause of
action and are separate proceedings. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C
are for maintenance whereas proceedings under Domestic Violence Act are
for monetary relief for expenses and losses incurred due to domestic
violence and the same are in addition to maintenance entitled to. However,
in subsequent proceeding, amount granted, if any, has to be in addition to
the earlier amount i.e. earlier quantum of maintenance awarded is to be
taken into account. Court has to adjust the quantum in view of the needs
and requirements of the party.
9. In fact, law to above extent has been clarified by this Court in
the case of Bhagyashree vs. Purushottam, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6583 ,
holding that proceeding both under Section 125 Cr.P.C as well as
Umesh PAGE 5 OF 6
REVB-212-2024.odt
proceedings under Domestic Violence Act are indeed maintainable.
10. Here, revisionist admittedly works as Nursing Officer and it has
come on record that he earns salary to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In earlier
proceedings, respondent-wife is beneficiary of total Rs. 35,000/-. Law
permits wife to seek 1/3rd amount of the said income.
11. Therefore, taking the same into account, additional amount of
Rs. 15,000/- granted by the Family Court cannot be said to be illegal or
excess. For above reasons, this Court does not find any error on the part of
trial Court in granting additional maintenance apart from earlier
maintenance, so as to cause interfere.
12. In view of above discussion, as this Court finds no case being
made out on merit in the revision, the same is required to be dismissed.
Accordingly, criminal revision application stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh PAGE 6 OF 6
