Bombay High Court
Mr Akhil Kumar Ratanchand Jain vs Mrs Renu Akhil Kumar Jain on 7 October, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:43124
-CRA454-2024.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 454 OF 2024
Akhilkumar Ratanchand Jain ..Applicant
Versus
SANTOSH Renu Akhilkumar Jain & Anr ...Respondents
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
Ms. Hemangi D. Pathare, for the Applicant.
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI Mr. Surendra Kumar Choudhari, for Respondent No.1.
Date: 2025.10.07
21:20:29 +0530
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 7th OCTOBER, 2025
ORDER:
-
1. This revision application is directed against a judgment
and order dated 14th February, 2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, in P.W.D.V.A. Appeal No.15
of 2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant
against an order dated 3rd April, 2021 passed by the learned
Magistrate in Criminal MA No.67 of 2013, thereby granting
monetary relief and protection orders, came to be dismissed.
2. The background facts leading to this revision can be
stated in brief as under:
2.1 The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the
respondent on 16th February, 1996. The applicant and
respondent have been blessed with a son and a daughter.
-CRA454-2024.DOC
2.2 The respondent asserted that the applicant subjected
her to matrimonial cruelty in order to coerce her to meet the
unlawful demand to bring money from her father to finance
the acquisition of a house at Mumbai and complete the
Chartered Accountant's course. The applicant allegedly
subjected the respondent to domestic violence by resorting to
physical, emotional and economic abuses.
2.3 After the applicant and respondent shifted to a flat at
Naigaon, the ill-treatment escalated and the applicant
withdrew himself from the company of the respondent though
they were residing under one and the same roof. The
applicant failed and neglected to provide for the necessities of
life of the respondent and minor children. The applicant
threatened to throw the respondent out of the shared
household. Thus, a complaint was lodged by the respondent
on 14th January, 2013 with the police. Eventually, the
respondent filed application under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("the
DV Act, 2005") seeking various reliefs thereunder.
2.4 The respondent resisted the application. It was denied
that the applicant had subjected the respondent to
matrimonial cruelty. The applicant had never made any
-CRA454-2024.DOC
unlawful demand. The insistence on completion of Chartered
Accountant's course by the respondent, was not an act of
either cruelty or domestic violence as at the time of marriage
the parties had agreed that the respondent would pursue and
complete the Chartered Accountant's course. The allegations
of emotional and economic abuse were refuted. It was
contended that the respondent herself had withdrawn from
the company of the applicant and she tried to alienate the
children also from the applicant by exercising ill influence on
them, though the applicant and respondent were residing in
the same house. It was further contended that the
respondent was capable of working and earning a sumptuous
amount. Conversely, the financial position of the applicant
was not sound.
2.5 The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the
respondent and applicant. After appraisal of the evidence and
documents tendered for his perusal, the learned Magistrate
was persuaded to partly allow the application holding, inter
alia, that there was ample material to show that the
applicant had subjected the respondent to domestic violence.
The learned Magistrate thus awarded a monetary relief in the
nature of lumpsum payment of Rs.3,10,000/-. Compensation
-CRA454-2024.DOC
of Rs.50,000/- for the mental torture and emotional distress.
The respondent was also restrained from disposing or in any
manner disturbing the possession of the applicant over the
shared household and from committing any act of domestic
violence against the respondent.
3. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal
under Section 29 of the DV Act, 2005 before the learned
Sessions Judge, Vasai. By the impugned judgment and order
the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal finding no
ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Magistrate. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
having regard to the situation in life of the parties, the
learned Judge concurred with the view of the learned
Magistrate on the quantum of monetary relief and
compensation as well as the necessity of the restraint orders.
4. Being further aggrieved, the applicant has invoked the
revisional jurisdiction.
5. Ms. Pathare, the learned Counsel appointed to espouse
the cause of the applicant, would urge that the learned
Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge committed
material irregularity in granting the reliefs in favour of the
respondent. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the
-CRA454-2024.DOC
respondent had not lodged any complaint of the alleged ill-
treatment and harassment for over 17 years of marriage. The
learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge failed to
notice that the complaint under the DV Act was in the nature
of a pre-emptive action for the proceeding which the applicant
was constrained to file for the dissolution of marriage on
account of the cruelty and desertion by the respondent.
There was no material to indicate that the applicant had
subjected the respondent to domestic violence. The courts
below completely misconstrued the evidence in regard to the
insistence of the applicant that the respondent should clear
her Chartered Accountant's examination. In any event, the
impugned order suffers from the vice of non-consideration of
the relevant factors in the matter of determination of the
quantum of the monetary relief. The fact that the applicant
was jobless since the year 2016 was not properly appreciated.
6. Per contra, Mr. Choudhary, the learned Counsel for the
respondent, would urge that there is neither any
jurisdictional error nor procedural defect or material
irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts below
which would warrant interference in exercise of revisional
powers. The courts below have arrived at justifiable findings
-CRA454-2024.DOC
on the basis of the evidence and material on record. Such
findings are not open for interference in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction.
7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions
canvassed across the bar and the material on record. It is
incontrovertible that the applicant and respondent are
residing under one and the same roof. The house premises
has been acquired in the joint names of the applicant and
respondent. At the material time, the teenage children of the
applicant were dependent upon the applicant. The
respondent had no independent source of income. The
respondent lodged the complaint with the police in the year
2013 with the allegations of matrimonial cruelty and
domestic violence in the form of physical, emotional and
economic abuse.
8. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears
that the trigger for the matrimonial dispute was the alleged
unlawful demands by the applicant to bring money from the
respondent's father to finance the acquisition of house at
Mumbai, and the insistence of completing Chartered
Accountant's course. It is imperative to note that the
applicant has not controverted the fact that he was insisting
-CRA454-2024.DOC
upon the respondent to complete the Chartered Accountant's
course. On the contrary, it was the stand of the applicant
that, that was a condition on which the parties had agreed to
solemnize marriage. It was the case of the respondent that
with the responsibilities of growing children and the age
catching up on her, she found it difficult to study and clear
the Chartered Accountant's examination. In such
circumstances, the insistence of the applicant, and the
consequent harassment and emotional abuse of the
respondent clearly falls within the tentacles of, "domestic
violence".
9. It has further emerged from the record that the
testimony of the respondent with regard to the various forms
of the domestic violence, she was subjected to, could not be
impeached during the course of the cross-examination. The
evidence of the applicant, on the contrary, was of bare denial.
It was conceded by the applicant that at times the father of
the respondent had paid the fees of the children.
10. In the totality of the circumstances, the submission on
behalf of the applicant that the failure to lodge any complaint
about the alleged ill-treatment for over 17 years eroded the
veracity of the claim of the respondent, cannot be readily
-CRA454-2024.DOC
acceded to. The situation in which the respondent found
herself with the responsibility of two children, who were
pursuing education, cannot be lost sight of. In the wake of
the matrimonial dispute recourse to police is often the last
resort, when the other options are firmly closed. Generally
efforts are directed towards saving the marital bond even
while enduring harassment and ill-treatment. It appears that
in the instant case also, the respondent endured the
sufferings and only when the applicant threatened to throw
the respondent out of the shared household, the respondent
approached the police. In this view of the matter, the failure
to lodge the complaint at an earlier point in time does not
detract materially from the case of the respondent.
11. On the aspect of the monetary reliefs, in the nature of
grant of a lumpsum payment of Rs.3,10,000/-, the absence of
a prayer for monthly maintenance in the application filed by
the respondent, was not of material significance. Under
Section 20 of the DV Act, 2005, the Magistrate is empowered
to order payment of a lumpsum amount or monthly payment
of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case
may require. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 mandates that the
monetary relief to be granted to the aggrieved person shall be
-CRA454-2024.DOC
adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the
standard of living to which the aggrieved person is
accustomed.
12. Since the applicant was working with Ambuja Cement
and drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month and yet
neglected to maintain the respondent and their children, the
award of monetary relief can hardly be faulted at. In this
inflationary era and in a metropolis like Mumbai, the award
of a lumpsum payment of Rs.3,10,000/- cannot be said to be
unreasonable or exorbitant.
13. An effort was made on behalf of the applicant to urge
that the respondent is qualified as she had Accountant
Technician Certificate from ICAI and, therefore, the
respondent could earn and support herself. Again, the
situation in life of the parties cannot be lost sight of. The
possession of a qualification cannot be the sole barometer to
judge the dependability. The respondent had the
responsibilities of two children. The respondent found it
difficult to clear the Chartered Accountant's examination.
Therefore, the mere the fact that the respondent is qualified
would not render her claim for monetary relief untenable.
-CRA454-2024.DOC
14. Ms. Pathare would urge that, in the intervening period,
the applicant had lost his job. Thus, the applicant could not
have been saddled with the liability to pay the lumpsum
amount towards maintenance. Reliance was sought to be
placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Delhi
High Court in the case of Sanjay Bhardwaj and ors. vs. State
and anr.1, wherein it was enunciated that no law provides
that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately from
him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court
cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal
but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband
and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally
capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully
employed before marriage.
15. Evidently, the aforesaid judgment does not govern the
facts of the case at hand. The material on record indicates
that despite the alleged acts of domestic violence, the
respondent has been constrained to reside in the shared
household. Neither the respondent was gainfully employed
nor the circumstances are such that the respondent can
readly secure an employment and earn her livelihood. In any
event, the award of lumpsum maintenance in the
1 II (2010) DMC 574.
-CRA454-2024.DOC
circumstances of the case, appears to be appropriate. An
order for monthly maintenance would have proved to be more
onerous for the applicant, if the applicant has lost the
employment, as claimed.
16. The order of payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/-
for the mental torture and emotional distress caused by the
acts of the domestic violence, appears conservative. The
protection orders restraining the applicant from disturbing
the possession of the respondent over the shared household
and committing acts of domestic violence were imminently
warranted.
17. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court in
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction does not find any
jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned
order. Resultantly, the revision application deserves to be
dismissed.
18. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
Revision Application stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
