Bombay High Court
Shaikh Raju Shah S/O Rajjak Shah vs Asiya Begum W/O Shaikh Raju Shah on 23 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26228
1 923cra st 2834.25 Judgment .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
923 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 2834 OF 2025
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1069 OF 2025
IN REVNST/2834/2025
Shaikh Raju Shah s/o Rajjak Shah,
Age; 54 years, Occ.- Business.
R/o: Plot No.16, Saeeda Colony,
Jatwada Road, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT
(Original Respondent)
VERSUS
Asiya Begum w/o Shaikh Raju Shah,
Age; 45 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o: At present:- Roshan Gate,
Mujib Colony, Near Sadat Masjid
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Applicant)
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shaikh Kayyum Najir
...
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 23.09.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The applicant-husband has preferred this Revision
Application challenging the judgment and order dated 10.09.2024,
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in petition E-
No.30 of 2021, whereby, granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to
the respondent from the date of the application.
2 923cra st 2834.25 Judgment .odt
2. At the outset, it appears that the respondent, the applicant's
wife, filed an application for the grant of maintenance under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant. After
considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge held that the
applicant is liable to pay the respondent Rs. 10,000/- p.m. in
maintenance and passed the impugned order accordingly.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant vehemently contended
that no opportunity was given to the applicant to contest the matter or
to adduce evidence, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside. However, on perusal of the judgment, it appears from
paragraph No. 10 of the judgment that the respondent has appeared in
the matter and filed his reply to the application; however, thereafter, he
remained absent continuously and therefore, the matter was proceeded
against him. Though he argued that no opportunity was granted to
him, in fact, sufficient opportunity was granted to him, but he remained
absent and failed to contest the application, and therefore, the matter
continued against him. Hence, I do not find substance in his contention
to set aside the order and remand the matter to the learned Judge of
the family Court for granting him an opportunity.
4. Apart from that, on perusal of the record, it is apparent that
the learned Judge, after considering evidence on record, observed in
paragraph No.17 that the applicant has a three-storied house and there
3 923cra st 2834.25 Judgment .odt
are three shops on the ground floor of the said house. The applicant
receives Rs. 20,000/- p.m. rent from those shops. Moreover, the
applicant has another house of 500 sq. ft. and is receiving rent of Rs.
20,000/- p.m. It is also evident that the applicant possesses five tractors
and trolleys. Her testimony was neither challenged nor denied, so there
is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The Learned Judge has rightly
considered her testimony and the material on record. Similarly, the
applicant has produced the vehicle particulars of the two tractors on
record and a 7/12 extract of Gut NO. 316 of the village Jatwada,
Harsul, District Aurangabad and 7/12 extract of the land Gut No.
225/2/4 of village Harsul, District Aurangabad, and documents
regarding plot No. 36 on record. Those documents themselves indicate
that the applicant has possessed ample properties. Likewise, he is doing
business in supplying building materials and earning money from them.
Considering the unchallenged evidence of the respondent and material
on record, the learned Judge of the Family Court has granted the
respondent maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m.. Therefore, I do not find
any substance in his contention that the learned judge has granted an
exorbitant amount of maintenance to the respondent.
5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, the order reveals
that in paragraph Nos. 17 to 19, the learned Judge has discussed in
detail the means of income of the applicant and held that the
4 923cra st 2834.25 Judgment .odt
respondent is entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and
directed the applicant to pay the said amount to the respondent. The
finding recorded by the learned Judge is based upon proper
appreciation of evidence. The learned Advocate for the applicant failed
to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Furthermore, the applicant was unable to point out that he does not
have sufficient means to maintain the respondent or that the findings
recorded by the learned Judge are illegal and perverse to interfere in
the revisional jurisdiction.
6. Needless to say, the order of the learned Judge is not
manifestly perverse. There is nothing predictable that shows that the
order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, the order is passed by the learned
Judge on proper appreciation of evidence. "It is pertinent to note that it
is an obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, and he cannot be
permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain her due to financial
constraints, since he is capable of earning."
7. Besides, a judicial note can be taken that there are rises in
the prices of the essential commodities; therefore, the maintenance
amount granted to the respondent appears too meagre to satisfy her
daily needs. The respondent-wife is living independently and is entitled
to a level of maintenance that reflects the standard of living she enjoyed
during the marriage, which reasonably secures her future.
5 923cra st 2834.25 Judgment .odt
8. Thus, perusing the record and impugned order, it appears
that the applicant failed to maintain the respondent when he has
sufficient means of income to maintain her. Consequently, it seems that
the order passed by the learned Judge is just and proper; hence, no
interference is required in the impugned judgment under the revisional
jurisdiction at the hands of this Court. That being so, the application,
being bereft of merit, stands dismissed.
9. Inform the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad,
accordingly.
10. In view of the dismissal of the Criminal Revision
Application, the Criminal Application No. 1069 of 2025 stands disposed
of.
( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )
mahajansb/
