[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Avinash Shivaji Bhandare vs Anita Avinash Bhandare And Another on 4 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:4806
REVN-14-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2022
Mr. Avinash Shivaji Bhandare,
Age: 43 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Room No. 565/3, Indrayani,
Darshan Colony, Dehu Road,
Tq & Dist. Pune ...Applicant
Versus
1. Mrs. Anita Avinash Bhandare,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Household,
2. Kumar Lavanya Avinash Bhandare,
Age: 5 years, Occ. Education,
u/g of her mother Anita Avinash Bhandare
Both R/o:- C/o. Shakuntala Govind Sapkal
R/o. Moglai, Near Moti Nala, Lane No. 6
Dhule, Tq & Dist. Dhule ...Respondents
***
• Mr. V. A. Husain, Advocate for the Applicant
• Ms. L. R. Thakur, Advocate for the Respondents
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 02, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 04, 2026
ORDER :
1. Revisionist - Husband hereby takes exception to judgment
and order dated 14.07.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Dhule in
Petition No. E-35/2019 granting maintenance in favour of wife and
daughter.
PAGE 1 OF 7
REVN-14-2022.odt
2. Proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were instituted by present Respondent against
present Revision Petitioner contending that, she was married on
24.12.2013 and out of their wedlock, Respondent No. 2 - Daughter was
born. It is her specific case that, after delivery, in spite of several
messages being sent, neither husband nor mother-in-law came to see
new born and she herself went to show them on 24.12.2014 and
23.01.2015 but she was not allowed to enter the house. She managed to
go cohabit but she was again evicted and thereafter, she and daughter
being neglected, she instituted above proceedings on the ground that,
she has no means to maintain both of them and claimed that Husband
by working in Ordinance Depot of Army earned salary of Rs. 50,000/-
and has other income from agricultural property and thereby sought
maintenance.
3. The above proceedings were opposed by present Revision
Petitioner refuting all the contentions. However, he admitted the
relations.
After appreciating the respective cases advanced by each of
the side and their evidence, learned Family Court awarded
maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the daughter
since date of filing of application. Precisely, the said order is subject
PAGE 2 OF 7
REVN-14-2022.odt
matter of preset Revision.
4. Heard learned Counsels for both sides at length.
5. This being revision, re-appreciation of the evidence is to be
avoided. It is only to be tested whether impugned order is illegal,
irregular or perverse. The object of revision has been lucidly and
succinctly dealt in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra and
Another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 407. The relevant paragraph is
borrowed and quoted hereunder:
Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to
call for and examine the records of an inferior court for
the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and
regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect
or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the
court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of
them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to
be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly
erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of
law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence,
material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not
exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case
would have to be determined on its own merits.
Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuild restrictions is that it should not be against an
PAGE 3 OF 7
REVN-14-2022.odt
interim or interlocutory order. The court has to keep in
mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the court is
dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially
falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much advanced staged in the proceedings
under the CrPC.
Revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is
in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in
such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be
exercised on a question of law. However, when factual
appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the
class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically,
the power is required to be exercised so that justice is
done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely
on apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a
sufficient ground for interference on such cases.
The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or
propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be. Though Section 397
CrPC does not specifically use the expression "prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or
correctness of an order passed by a court is the very
foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
CrPC but ultimately it also requires justice to be done.
The jurisdiction could be exercise where there is
palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of
law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the
PAGE 4 OF 7
REVN-14-2022.odt
juridical discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
6. In view of this, cases advanced by each of the sides are
tested with a limited purpose for ascertaining, whether there is
erroneous order or any patent illegality or perversity committed by
learned Family Court or not.
7. After hearing both sides, as stated above, relations are not
disputed. Here, there is further no dispute that, wife resides separately
with daughter. There are allegations and counter allegations against
each other showing marital discord. In support of maintenance claim,
present Respondent had adduced her own evidence at Exhibit 17 and
has relied on numerous documentary evidence including salary slip of
husband. Husband gave his evidence at Exhibit 40 and he placed on
record previous orders passed by learned JMFC and also placed on
record medical documents. As expected, learned Family Court seems to
have taken into account the affidavits Exhibits 44 and 47, which are
their affidavits in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr, AIR 2021 SC 569.
8. The only ground of challenge to the impugned order is that,
there are two distinct proceedings instituted by husband i.e. one under
125 CrPC and another under Protection of Women under Domestic
PAGE 5 OF 7
REVN-14-2022.odt
Violence Act and, therefore, wife is entitled to receive maintenance only
under either of them and not both. However, in view of the above
referred judgment i.e. in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), wife is
entitled to maintain proceedings under distinct statutes, provided she
discloses the details of the previous proceedings in her subsequent
proceedings. Therefore, above contention has no substance.
9. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner on Court query has
placed on record salary slip issued by Ordinance Depot Telegaon
Dabhade, Government of India, which is recent one i.e. for the month of
December, 2025. Revision Petitioner seems to be drawing around
Rs.64,464/- salary and net take home salary shown to be Rs.37,795/-.
Before the learned Family Court salary certificate in the year 2019 was
to the tune of Rs.34,000/- and, therefore, apparently currently he is
receiving more than that. Learned Family Court has dealt and devoted
point no. 3, more particularly, on proof of sufficiency of income to
provide separate maintenance to daughter and wife. It has been noticed
that, there was nothing in support of medical expenses asserted by
Revision Petitioner moreover, he did not have liabilities to shoulder.
Taking the discussion made by learned Family Court in the
paragraphs 24 to 27, there cannot be said to be any error on the part of
Family Court while computing the maintenance liable to the paid to
PAGE 6 OF 7
REVN-14-2022.odt
wife and daughter, who apparently have no distinct means and source
for subsistence.
10. In view of above discussion, there being no merit in the
Criminal Revision Application, the same deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, the order:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 7 OF 7
