Bombay High Court
Shrawan S/O Rajeramji Banasure vs Ankita W/O Shrawan Banasure on 24 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9697
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 69/2025
...
Shrawan S/o Rajeramji Banasure,
Aged 35 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Balaji Nagar, Ballarpur,
Tah. Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur.
... PETITIONER
--VERSUS--
Ankita W/o Shrawan Banasure,
Age 29 years, Occ. Private Job,
R/o C/o Ramesh Ramrao Nasare,
Tarasawanga, Tah. Ashti, Dist. Wardha.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Sonali Saware Gadhawe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.V. Rai, Advocate for the Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2025.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner is challenging the
judgments passed in PWDVA Appeal No.14/2024 and PWDVA
Appeal No.11/2024 on 19/11/2024 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Wardha. Further challenge is raised to the
order dated 26/03/2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ashti, in PWDVA No.29/2020.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded
husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on
28/06/2020. It is alleged that, after marriage, the present
respondent-wife resided with the petitioner only for 63 days
and left the matrimonial house. The petitioner filed an
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
application for restitution of conjugal rights against the
respondent-wife. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed
complaint under Section 498-A, so also, under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ashti. The said case was registered as
PWDVA No.29/2020. In the said proceedings, the respondent-
wife filed an application for grant of interim maintenance
against the petitioner.
4. After hearing both the sides, the learned J.M.F.C. by
order dated 26/03/2024 allowed the application and granted
maintenance amounting to Rs.15,000/- to the respondent-wife.
The present petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife
challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the
Sessions Court at Wardha which is numbered as PWDVA
No.11/2024 and PWDVA No.14/2024, respectively. By an
order dated 19/11/2024, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Wardha, was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
respondent-wife by modifying the maintenance amount and
enhanced the same to Rs.25,000/-. However, the appeal filed
by the present petitioner was dismissed by separate judgments.
Therefore, the present petition is filed challenging both the
orders.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that this is the second round of
litigation before this Hon'ble Court. Initially, the petitioner-
husband, so also, respondent-wife, approached this Court by
filing Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 204/2023 and 468/2023,
wherein, both have challenged the order dated 10/02/2023
passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in
PWDVA Appeal No. 02/2021. The learned Sessions Court in
Appeal filed by the wife under Section 29 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has enhanced the
amount of interim maintenance from Rs.6,000/- to
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
Rs.15,000/-. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner-husband
was allowed and the petition filed by the respondent-wife was
dismissed and the matter was remanded back to the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, to consider it afresh, in
the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Rajnesh VS Neha
& Ano. (2021) 2 SCC 3241. Accordingly, the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ashti, passed an order below Exh.13 on
26/03/2024 thereby granting interim maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- to the respondent-wife.
6. Again, both the parties have challenged the order
dated 26/03/2024 passed by the Learned Magistrate, wherein,
the interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- was granted before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, by filing Appeal
Nos.14/2024 and 11/2024 by husband and wife, respectively.
By an order dated 19/11/2024, the appeal of the petitioner-
husband was dismissed, however, the appeal of the respondent-
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
wife was allowed by enhancing the amount from Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.25,000/-, and therefore, the present petition is filed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
amount granted by the Appellate Court is exorbitant and
against the settled principles of law as the respondent-wife is
educated and she can maintain herself and she has only resided
for 63 days with the petitioner-husband. Further, Rs.25,000/-
is exorbitant considering the payment of the petitioner, as the
petitioner is getting only Rs.71,000/-. The petitioner is further
required to pay EMI for the loan obtained, and there are
statutory deductions. Even the mother of the petitioner is
dependent on him, and therefore, he is required to pay
Rs.10,000/- independently as per the order of the S.D.O. The
Court ought to have balanced the rights of the parties while
granting such a huge amount as interim maintenance. She
further submits that the respondent-wife is educated women
and was doing job before marriage and getting handsome
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
amount. The Court's attention was invited to the cross-
examination where she has admitted that she has M.Com and
B.B.A. degrees, so also, has completed MS-CIT course.
Therefore, if an educated person is sitting ideally in the house,
under such circumstances, the husband is not entitled to pay
maintenance to the respondent-wife. So as to substantiate the
above contentions, she has relied on the following authorities :-
(1) Rajnesh VS Neha & Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, (2) Megha
Khetrapal VS Rajat Kapoor, 2025 SCC Online Del 1688 (3)
Bhushan Kumar Meen VS. Mansi Meen Allas Harpreet Kaur,
AIRONLINE 2009 SC 407 (4) Madan Kumar Satpathy VS
Priyadarshini Pati (Orrisa High Court in APFAM No.417/2023).
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-wife submits that the respondent though is
educated, but is not getting a job. He has placed on record
along with Pursis, copy of interview call letters dated
12/07/2024 and 02/10/2024. He further submits that the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
petitioner is getting a handsome salary which can be gathered
from the salary slip of September, 2022, that the petitioner
being a professor is getting salary of Rs.1,43,272/-. After
considering the affidavit of assets and liabilities which was filed
on record, initial order of Rs.15,000/- was passed by the
learned J.M.F.C., however, as the amount was inadequate, the
respondent-wife has filed the appeal and in appeal Rs.25,000/-
was granted. Considering, the entire material on record, the
Appellate Court after hearing both the sides has granted
Rs.25,000/- as enhanced maintenance amount. He further
submits that in order to deprive the claim of the respondent,
false case was filed before the Learned S.D.O. by mother
against her son and accordingly obtained the order of
maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. Apart from the salary of
Rs.1,43,272, the petitioner owns 10 acres of agricultural land,
and is getting huge income from it which is the second source
of income. Therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly passed the
order of enhanced maintenance by granting Rs.25,000/-.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
9. After hearing both the parties at length and after
going through the record placed before me, it appears that
initially the order below Exh.13 was passed by the learned
J.M.F.C, Ashti, District Wardha, thereby granting interim
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent from
the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 07/12/2020, till final
decision. While considering the application for interim
maintenance, which is filed by the respondent-wife, it appears
from the order that both the parties filed their affidavit of assets
and liabilities at Exh.102 and 110, respectively. Thereafter, in
detail the Court has marshalled all the relevant facts. As against
the claim of the respondent-wife of Rs. 50,000/-, the Court has
granted Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, both the parties filed an
appeal. The appeal of the husband was dismissed, however,
the appeal filed by the respondent-wife was allowed by
granting enhancement from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Under
such circumstances, the question falls for consideration before
me is that "whether the Appellate Court while enhancing the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
amount of maintenance has considered the relevant facts and
circumstances of the cases?"
10. As both the parties relied on the Judgment delivered
by Supreme Court, so also, by other High Courts. It would be
useful to refer to the Judgments which are cited by the
petitioner.
Paragraph Nos. 44, 47 and 50 of Megha Khetrapal
(supra) reads thus:-
"44. Furthermore, it has been rightly observed by
the learned Principal Judge that while the petitioner
claims that she cannot sit idle and is trying to search for
a job, she has not placed any evidence on record
regarding her efforts to secure employment or resume
her business activities either before the Court below or
before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered view that the mere assertion of job-seeking,
without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to
establish genuine efforts at self- sufficiency.
47. Taking into consideration the observations
made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that
qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous
of remaining idle, should now set up a claim for interim
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
maintenance. Section 125 of the CrPC carries the
legislative intent to maintain equality among the
spouses, provide protection to the wives, children and
parents, and not promote idleness. In light of the same,
this Court is of the considered view that a well-educated
wife, with experience in a suitable gainful job, ought not
to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her
husband. Therefore, interim maintenance is being
discouraged in the present case as this Court can see
potential in the petitioner to earn and make good of her
education.
50. This Court is unable to comprehend the fact as
to why, despite being able-bodied and well qualified, the
petitioner has remained to choose idle since her return
to India. Thus, it is held that the learned Principal Judge
rightly passed the impugned order holding that the
petitioner herein is not entitled to grant of interim
maintenance considering the peculiar facts."
Paragraph No. 6 of Bhushan Kumar Meen (supra)
reads thus :
" 6. Having heard learned counsel for the
respective parties, and considering the reality of the
situation to the effect that the appellant is receiving a
sum of about Rs.9000/- in hand after deduction of
various amounts, including the instalments towards
repayment of the home loan, we are of the view that the
amount as awarded by way of interim maintenance is on
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
the high side. At the same time, we cannot also shut our
eyes to the fact that at present the respondent-wife is
not employed or at least there is nothing on record to
indicate she is employed in any gainful work. However,
having regard to the qualifications that she possesses,
there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position
to also maintain herself in the future. Accordingly, we
modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate,
granting Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife
by way of interim maintenance and direct that the
appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife a
sum of Rs.5000/- per month, instead of Rs.10,000/-,
and all other terms and conditions, as indicated by the
learned Magistrate, will continue to operate."
Paragraph No. 4 of the Madan Kumar Satpathy
(supra) read thus:
" 4. Law never appreciates those wives, who
remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying
maintenance on the husband by not working or not
trying to work despite having proper and high
qualification. It is found in this case that the OP-wife
had earlier worked in some media houses and she has
got definite prospect to work and earn her livelihood.
The intention and objective of legislature in enacting
Section 125 of CrPC is to provide succor to those wives,
who are unable to maintain themselves and have no
sufficient income for their sustenance. The social
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance,
if considered on the admitted facts as discussed in this
case, it would go to disclose the wife's need and
requirement to be balanced not only with the income
and liability of the husband, but also has to be
considered on the backdrop of the education and
prospect of the wife to earn."
11. It appears from the Judgment dated 19/11/2024
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in
Paragraph No.11, has considered the assets and liabilities,
wherein, salary slip of September, 2023, shows that the gross
salary is Rs.1,43,272/- and net salary is Rs.71,477/-. It is
further observed that as per the order of the S.D.O, the present
petitioner is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to his
mother. The court has also taken into consideration the case of
Rajnesh (supra), so also, relied on other several authorities,
which would suggest that only statutory deductions ignoring all
other deductions from the salary of the husband is required to
be taken into consideration for deciding the application for
interim maintenance. The Authorities cited further suggests
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
that the cost of living will also have to be taken into
consideration. In the backdrop of this, the Appellate Court
considered the inflation rate, so also, prices of essential
commodities, and therefore, came to a conclusion that the
petitioner is getting a handsome salary. The petitioner is having
10 acres of agricultural land, and therefore, wife is entitled to
live life with dignity and decency, and therefore, considering all
the above circumstances granted Rs.25,000/-. In my humble
opinion, the Appellate Court has not committed any error for
the reason that admittedly the petitioner is a professor and
getting gross salary of Rs.1,43,272/- and after deductions
getting net salary of Rs.71,477/-. This position is of the year
2022, naturally there might be a hike in the salary. Apart from
this, even ignoring the hike, if this salary is considered along
with the income from the Agricultural land, the petitioner is
having 10 acres of agricultural land. It is further to be noted
that the balance is required to be maintained so that even the
husband is not burdened and similarly the wife should also be
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
able to live her life with same standard as compared to the
petitioner. Needless to mention that every women is required
and entitled to live her life with dignity and decency, not only
that, as was held in the case of Rajnesh (supra) that while
granting interim maintenance the Court should consider the
entire circumstances like the market price of the essential
commodities as well as inflation rates, food and clothing of the
wife and other similar things from which it can be said that
wife is living in a dignified manner. Further, as was argued by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-wife is an
educated person. She has completed her M.Com as well as BBA
and MS-CIT course, and therefore, she will get employment
easily. No doubt, the respondent-wife is highly educated lady
and it appears that before marriage she was doing job and
getting a salary of Rs.15,000/-, however, for the purpose of
marriage she has sacrificed her job and started cohabiting with
the petitioner-husband. Now it seems from the Pursis which is
placed on record by the respondent-wife that she is filling the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
form for getting a job. Interview call letters dated 12/07/2024
and 02/12/2024 depicts that she is trying hard to get a job,
however, she is not able to succeed, and therefore, the
judgments relied on by the petitioner would not be applicable
to the present case, as the facts and circumstances are
altogether different, it would be useful to refer to the Judgment
in the case of Dr. Rajiv Verghhese VS Rose Chakkrammankkil
Francis (2025) ALL SCR 107, Paragraph No. 11 reads thus:-
"11. We find that the High Court has erred in
reducing the quantum of maintenance to Rs.80,000/-
(Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month. The High
Court has considered only two sources of income for the
respondent. Firstly, the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh and Twenty-Five Thousand only) that he
earns from working as a Cardiologist at the Hospital.
Secondly, the rent amount he and his mother receive
from a property, of which the High Court has stated that
he receives half the amount only. However, the High
Court has not dealt with the findings of the Family Court
wherein the respondent is said to own a number of
worthful properties and the fact that he is the only legal
heir of his father. The Family Court found that the
respondent is accruing all the incomes from the
properties owned by his mother. The High Court has not
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
dealt with the aspect of the number of properties owned
by the respondent and looked at the rental income from
one property. The Family Court also noted that the
respondent was found to be in possession of a school
and could not substantiate his claim that the school was
running in losses. Therefore, the High Court has
overlooked certain aspects relating to the income of the
respondent which were looked at by the Family Court.
Further, it is also on record that the appellant is not
working as she sacrificed her employment after the
marriage. The appellant was accustomed to a certain
standard of living in her matrimonial home and
therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, is
also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she
would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home. "
12. Therefore, the Supreme Court in clear terms has said
"that the respondent-wife was accustomed to a certain standard
of living in her matrimonial home, and therefore, during the
pendency of the divorce petition, is also entitled to enjoy the
same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her
matrimonial home," and therefore, considering all the aspects
discussed supra, the interim maintenance granted by the
Appellate Court is justified.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 21-Cr.WP-69-2025
13. The provisions of domestic violence are beneficial
legislation and it is under this context, the facts and
circumstances will have to be considered in order to prevent
vagrancy of the wife. For the same, interim maintenance is
necessary to be granted, and therefore, considering the above
facts and circumstance, in my opinion, the order granting
maintenance of Rs.25,000/- is justified and no interference is
required. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) Rule stands discharged.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
