Bombay High Court
Prashant Rangnath More vs Priya Prashant More And Others on 27 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32591
{1} REVN 253 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 253 OF 2025
. Prashant Rangnath More
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. : Lasur Road,
in front of Bachpan School,
Samarth Ashok Nagar, Gangapur,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Applicant
Versus
1. Priya Prashant More
Age: 23 years, Occu.: Service Provider,
R/o. : Gut No.17, Survey No.63,
Nakshatra Wadi, Khalwadi Parisar,
Paithan Road, Aurangabad.
2. Rangnath Ramrao More
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Nil.
3. Yashodabai Rangnath More
Age: 58 years, Occu.: House wife
4. Prajakta Amit Mandale
Age: 34 years, Occu.: House wife
5. Pankaj Rangnath More
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Education.
Respondent nos.2 to 5 all R/o. Lasur Road,
Infront of Bachpan School,
Samarth Ashok Nagar, Gangapur,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad. .....Respondents
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Balbhim R. Kedar
Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr.M.G.Kochar h/f.
Mr. Bharatkumar Ramdeo Warma
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
{2} REVN 253 OF 2025
RESERVED ON : 24 NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27 NOVEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. In instant revision, there is challenge to Judgment and order
dated 27-06-2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad in PWDVA Appeal No.88 of 2024 arising out of
Judgment and order dated 19-07-2024 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Court No.11, Aurangabad in PWDVA
No.23 of 2021.
2. In nutshell facts of prosecution case are that, revisionist and
respondent no.1 herein got married on 23-12-2018. Post marriage,
present respondent no.1 wife alleged domestic violence and
instituted proceedings bearing PWDVA No.23 of 2021 urging for
directions and monetary reliefs under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act ("the D.V.Act"). She attributed
physical and mental violence and cruelty, she being driven out of the
house and not being provided for her maintenance and rather being
neglected. Therefore, she sought maintenance to the tune of
Rs.30,000/- per month, Rs.10,000/- towards house rent and also
sought compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-.
{3} REVN 253 OF 2025
3. Such proceedings were contested by present revision petitioner
husband and after appreciating their evidence at exh.53 and 74
respectively, learned trial Court was pleased to record findings that
there is domestic violence and therefore, wife is entitled to
Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance as she is neglected.
However, learned trial Court refused to award quantum of
compensation as prayed and awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards
compensation.
4. Respondent no.1 wife again challenged above Judgment for
enhancement of maintenance, compensation and for rejection of
distinct amount for rent. She succeeded in appeal too whereby
maintenance amount was raised from Rs.20,000/- per month to
Rs.30,000/- per month and revisionist husband was directed to pay
Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent and even compensation awarded
by trial court was raised from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.
Precisely getting dissatisfied by above orders, husband has
preferred instant revision.
5. Learned counsel for revisionist would point out that, both the
{4} REVN 253 OF 2025
learned Courts below failed to consider and appreciate the cases
advanced by the parties as well as the evidence on record. He would
point out that proceedings were false and out of annoyance for the
reason of husband instituting proceedings for declaration of marriage
to be void, as wife maintained extra marital relations. That, she had
also filed FIR No.426 of 2020 for offence under Sections 498-A, 354,
323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and merely to further
harass husband, she had instituted proceedings under the D.V.Act
before learned JMFC, Aurangabad. He pointed out that, learned
JMFC failed to consider that wife has left the company of husband on
her own accord and without just and sufficient cause and as such was
not entitled for maintenance. That, there was no evidence in support
of alleged domestic violence. That, merely by appreciating her
affidavit and without considering the answers given by her in cross-
examination, learned JMFC was pleased to record finding that wife
was victim of domestic violence.
6. He further submitted that against said order even present
revisionist has engaged counsel for challenging the order of learned
JMFC, Aurangabad and even draft of the same was prepared. That, a
copy of the said draft is also placed on record. However, according to
{5} REVN 253 OF 2025
him, subsequently, he learnt that his Advocate had neither filed
appeal nor had taken steps to challenge the order of learned JMFC.
According to him, for the fault of Advocate, party should not suffer.
7. He further submitted that even the First Appellate Court failed
to consider and appreciate the evidence and say given by husband
and moreover, in absence of any cogent and convincing reason,
allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 wife and raised the
maintenance from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.30,000/- per month.
He pointed out that even compensation was exorbitantly raised
without assigning just reasons. That, in fact learned trial court had
rightly held that revisionist husband was ready to accommodate and
cohabit with her and therefore, she was not entitled for distinct
amount under the head of rent. For all above reasons, learned
Counsel urges to allow the revision.
In support of his case, learned counsel placed reliance on the
decision of this Court (Bench at Nagpur) in the case of Akshay
Navalkishor Lakhotiya (Dr.) and Others v. Arti Akshay Lakhotiya (Dr.)
and Another, 2016 DGLS (Bom.) 983.
8. In answer to above, learned Counsel for respondent no.1
{6} REVN 253 OF 2025
would support Judgment and order of learned First Appellate Court
by pointing out that even learned trial court had on complete
appreciation of available evidence, recorded a finding that
respondent no.1 wife is victim of domestic violence and she was
entitled to monetary reliefs. It is pointed out that husband was
earning salary to the tune of Rs.96,000/- per month and therefore,
grant of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance was
insufficient to meet current expenses required for subsistence and
therefore, wife had preferred appeal wherein there was correct
appreciation of facts and circumstances and amount of maintenance
as well as compensation was rightly enhanced. According to learned
Counsel, the findings of the learned First Appellate Court are in
consonance with the evidence and the same cannot be faulted at.
Learned counsel seeks reliance on the decision of this Court
(Bench at Principal Seat) dated 22-03-2024 passed in Criminal
Revision Application No.234 of 2023 ( Kaushal Arvind Thakker v.
Jyoti Kaushal Thakker and Ors.).
9. Heard each of the sides to their satisfaction. Relations between
the parties are not disputed. Subsequent to marriage, as relations
between parties became strained in view of allegations and counter
{7} REVN 253 OF 2025
allegations, wife was put up with her parents and she instituted
proceedings by invoking Section 12 of the D.V. Act and sought reliefs
under Sections 18, 20, 22 of the D.V. Act and other ancillary reliefs.
The above case was resisted by revisionist husband by filing say at
exh.18. He refuted and traversed entire contentions and averments
raised in the petition as well as in the evidence.
10. Learned trial Court seems to have recorded a finding that
husband is responsible for inflicting domestic violence as a result of
which she was constrained to live with her parents. However,
learned trial Court also recorded a finding that though she is entitled
for maintenance, she was not entitled for distinct amount under the
head of rent as husband had expressed his willingness to
accommodate her. Learned trial Court considered the salary of the
husband and granted Rs.20,000/- per month for maintenance of wife
and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
11. Dissatisfied by granting only Rs.20,000/- per month towards
maintenance and on account of refusal to pay amount towards rent
and to enhance compensation, wife again preferred appeal and
succeeded in the same.
{8} REVN 253 OF 2025
12. As regards to evidence of wife in trial Court is considered, the
same has remained unshaken. There is very limited cross-
examination which too is of denial. Husband has levelled allegations
of previous marriage and her extra marital affair, but he could not
substantiate his such stand. He has also not challenged the very
Judgment and order passed by learned JMFC, Aurangabad. He is an
educated person and working as Assistant Branch Manager in a
Bank, and therefore, merely by trying to shift responsibility of not
filing appeal against his Counsel, it would not suffice. He ought to
have remained diligent from his side itself if at all he was aggrieved
by the order of learned JMFC, but the same had not happened.
13. As pointed out, learned Additional Sessions Judge, who dealt
with the appeal, has enhanced maintenance awarded by trial court
from 20,000/- per month to Rs.30,000/- per month by assigning
reasons in paragraph 19 and 20 of the impugned Judgment. Now
before this Court, it is tried to be submitted that there is no reason to
enhance the maintenance amount. However, learned First Appellate
Court seems to have noticed that revisionist husband drew salary of
nearly Rs.96,000/- per month. Therefore, taking the same into
consideration and when there was no issue to the parties, for
{9} REVN 253 OF 2025
maintenance of wife, in current days, by virtue of rise in expenses for
living, the amount has been raised from Rs.20,000/- per month to
Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, this court does not find any
illegality or error on the part of learned First Appellate Court in doing
so.
14. Second challenge to the impugned Judgment of learned First
Appellate Court is that it had granted amount towards rent when
even learned JMFC had refused for the same. To this extent, there is
discussion in the Judgment of First Appellate Court in paragraph 15,
which shows that by virtue of rise in size of the family of parents of
the wife, she was entitled for separate amount under the head of
rent. It is noticed that wife had sought rent even before learned trial
Court, but the same was turned down on the ground that husband
was willing to accommodate her and she herself had refrained from
going for cohabitation. However, when there are allegations of extra
marital affair without any foundation, it is difficult for wife to come
to cohabit and she rightly refused to do so. Learned trial court had
not pondered over this aspect. Be it so, learned First Appellate Court
had awarded Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent, which also seems
to be justified and reasonable.
{10} REVN 253 OF 2025
15. Another challenge in this revision is to the rise in compensation
awarded by learned trial court. Learned Counsel for revisionist
pointed out that learned trial Court had awarded only Rs.1,00,000/-
compensation, but learned First Appellate Court raised it
Rs.5,00,000/- without assigning any reason. In view of such
submission, impugned order is visited and learned First Appellate
Court seems to have dealt with this aspect in paragraph 21 of the
Judgment. Indeed, it is emerging that merely by stating that
husband had levelled wild allegations on her character and same
being not substantiated, there is need to grant enhance amount of
compensation. The learned First Appellate Court raised it from
Rs.1,00,000/- to directly Rs.5,00,000/-. This, in the considered
opinion of this Court, is without assigning sufficient cause to raise the
amount, because even in the trial court, same set of allegations were
raised and learned trial court had granted Rs.1,00,000/-, which was
just and proper. Therefore, only to this extent, interference is called
for.
16. To sum up, revisionist herein has failed to make out a case on
merits for interference in the order of learned First Appellate Court to
the extent of raising quantum of maintenance from Rs.20,000/- per
{11} REVN 253 OF 2025
month to Rs.30,000/- per month as the salary of husband has been
taken into account. Similarly, considering the right of wife to seek
amount towards rent, it has also been considered appropriately by
learned First Appellate Court, which was not considered by learned
trial court and therefore, to such extent this court finds no reason to
interfere.
In this revision, interference is only caused to the extent of rise
in compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- and so the
amount awarded by learned trial Court i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- towards
compensation is maintained as just and proper. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(I) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
(II) Clause (ii)(c) of the operative part of the Judgment and order
dated 27-06-2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad, in PWDVA Appeal No.88 of 2024 is modified as under :
"(ii)(c) The respondent no.1 husband is directed to pay
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the applicant wife within
one month from the date of this order."
{12} REVN 253 OF 2025
(III) Rest of the Judgment and order dated 27-06-2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in PWDVA Appeal No.88 of
2024 is kept intact.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
