[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Wasim Abdul Wahid Deshmukh vs Alfiya Wasim Deshmukh And Others on 6 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5150
{1} REVN 240 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 240 OF 2022
Mr. Wasim Abdul Wahid Deshmukh
Age : 33 years, Occu.: Private Service,
Residing at Shafak Villa, Plot No.28,
Mauli Society, RSC-1 & 8 Mhada Layouts,
Malad - West, Mumbai 400 089. ....Applicant
Versus
1. Mrs.Alfiya Wasim Deshmukh
Age : 33 years, Occu. : Housewife,
2. Mst.Abdulla Wasim Deshmukh
Age : 8 years, Occu.: Student,
Residing at ground & second floor,
RN Park, Shera Chowk, Master -
Colony, Mehrun, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
Under guardian of respondent no.1.
3. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondents
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Rajendra G. Hange
Advocate for Respondent nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Shaikh Nasimoddin
Rafiyoddin
APP for Respondent no.3 : Mr.S.G.Sangle
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 30 JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06 FEBRUARY, 2026
ORDER :
1. In this revision, husband of respondent no.1 takes exception to
judgment and order dated 13-05-2022 passed by learned Additional
{2} REVN 240 OF 2022
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2021 arising out
of judgment and order dated 30-04-2021 passed by learned 2 nd
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon in PWDVA No.189 of 2016.
2. Present respondent no.1 instituted proceedings for herself and
also on behalf of her minor son by invoking provisions under Sections
12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act 2005 alleging she to be victim of domestic violence at
the hands of husband and she compelled to leave the house, he
performing second marriage and further in spite of she having no
independent means and source to maintain herself, she sought
various reliefs including maintenance in above proceedings which
was numbered as PWDVA No.189 of 2006. The said proceedings
were contested by present revision petitioner and learned trial Court,
after appreciating oral and documentary evidence including affidavit
of income, assets and liabilities, recorded a finding that applicant
wife therein had made out a case that she was victim of violence and
thereby vide judgment and order dated 30-04-2021 amongst other
reliefs, directed maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to wife and Rs.6,000/- to
son.
{3} REVN 240 OF 2022
3. Aggrieved by the above, present revision petitioner preferred
appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide
Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2021 assailing the above judgment on
various grounds like inappropriate appreciation of evidence,
improper analysis of documentary evidence and so forth. This appeal
was contested by present respondents by causing their appearance
and again on appreciation of respective cases advanced by each of
the sides, learned First Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the
appeal for want of merits.
It is the above judgment, which is now subject matter of
instant revision.
4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that there
is no dispute that marriage between the parties was performed on
11-05-2014 and their son was born on 17-02-2015, however, except
so much, rest of allegations levelled by respondent no.1 wife are
patently false. That, there was no domestic violence as alleged, only
based on oral evidence of respondent no.1 wife, learned trial Court
has answered such point in affirmative and even learned First
Appellate Court confirmed the same. According to him, both the
Courts below have failed to correctly appreciate the available
{4} REVN 240 OF 2022
evidence. He pointed out that, there was no evidence about any
domestic violence. That, even there was no evidence of alleged
second marriage. That, husband had made all efforts to cohabit, but
wife did not respond and she herself kept her away and therefore,
she was not at all entitle for any relief.
5. As regards to monetary reliefs granted by learned trial Court
and affirmed by First Appellate Court, it is his submission that theer
was no convincing and legally acceptable evidence. That, in fact
revision petitioner is working as a waiter in hotel and he did not earn
as projected by wife. Moreover, he has his old aged parents to take
care of. Consequently, it is his submission that, as wife has left house
on her own accord, she was not entitle for any maintenance as
directed by both the Courts below. For above reasons, he urges this
Court to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment.
6. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 would oppose
revision application by taking this Court through affidavit filed by
them. He very emphatically submitted that in both the Courts there
was appreciation and re-appreciation of entire evidence adduced by
respondent no.1 wife. That, there are concurrent findings and both
{5} REVN 240 OF 2022
Courts have unanimously held that wife was victim of domestic
violence and therefore, entitle for reliefs she has urged for. He
pointed out that, when there is evidence suggesting second marriage,
which is not refuted by husband, wife cannot be forced to cohabit,
which is tried to be suggested during the proceedings in trial court
i.e. husband is ready to cohabit. For above reasons, learned counsel
supports the judgments passed by both the Courts below and prays to
dismiss the revision.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shamima
Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025; Kamatchi v. Lakshmi
Narayanan, AIROnline 2022 SC 514 and Smt.Munni Bai v.
Bhanwarilal and Anr., 2016(1) SCC 621.
7. This Court is called upon to exercise revisional powers invested
upon it under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it would be appropriate to spell-out
judicial precedent on the point of scope and object of revision under
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
While exercising powers under section 397 of Cr.P.C., this Court
is merely expected to test the legality, propriety or illegality in the
{6} REVN 240 OF 2022
findings recorded by learned trial court. Such powers are to be
exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there are glaring
errors on the face of order or there is failure and non compliance of
law, re-appreciation is to be avoided unless findings are patently
perverse and as such, is the narrow scope of revisional court. Law
regarding the scope of revision is elucidated in catena of judgments.
Though there are catena of judgments, the landmark judgment of
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460 is
relied and the relevant observations therein are borrowed and quoted
as under :
"12. Section 397 of the Code 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 it bears a
token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the 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."
{7} REVN 240 OF 2022
8. In the light above requirements, this Court has perused both
the orders under challenge as well as evidence adduced by
respondent no.1 wife and revision petitioner. Before trial court,
evidence of respondent no.1 wife is at exhibit 23 wherein she has
narrated entire events comprising of cruelty and violence inflicted to
her and she approaching police machinery for lodging complaint
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
She gave evidence that because of said mal-treatment, she was
constrained to leave his company. That, even efforts to urge husband
to take her back did succeed but again she was victimized and
therefore, she was constrained to leave the house for said justified
reason. That, she was constrained to leave in a rented premises with
her son. Above testimony, in spite of cross-examination, does not
seem to have been dislodged.
9. In his evidence, though revision petitioner herein, refuted the
allegations, there is simple denial. Moreover, he has admitted that, he
had received offer from wife to take her back as she was willing to
cohabit but he did not bring her back. He has also admitted that
complaint under Section 498A of the IPC was lodged against him.
He also admitted that, she was residing in a rented premises.
{8} REVN 240 OF 2022
Therefore, case of wife about she to be victim of domestic violence
has not been discarded by present revision petitioner, moreover,
learned trial Court seems to have obtained report of distinct
Authority and the same is at exibit 6. As there are details of events
comprising of domestic violence, learned trial Court accepted her
case and seems to have granted maintenance. In the judgment of
trial Court, more particularly, paragraph 26, 27, 28. 29, 30, 31, 32
and 33 are devoted on analyzing and appreciating evidence before
the Court. Therefore, findings recorded based on sound reasons
cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. How there is perversity and
to which extent has not been made clear by revision petitioner so as
to interfere.
10. Even on going through the judgment and order of learned First
Appellate Court, it is noticed that said Court has also taken efforts to
re-appreciate the respective cases advanced before it and finding trial
Court's judgment to be legally justified and supported by sound
reasons and to be based on oral and documentary evidence, learned
First Appellate Court rightly thought it fit to not to interfere as no
patent illegality was brought to the notice of the Court so as to
interfere.
{9} REVN 240 OF 2022
11. In this Court, while exercising powers under Section 397 of the
Cr.P.C., it is only expected by this court to see whether there is
illegality, error on the face of impugned orders. Having gone through
both the judgments and orders of the learned trial Court and learned
First Appellate Court, this court does not find there to be any error or
incorrect appreciation of available evidence. Even quantum awarded
by the learned trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court is
in consonance with the evidence that has emerged during the
proceedings and the same is not shown to be exorbitant or without
evidence.
Therefore, there being no illegality in the impugned judgments
and orders, this Court refrains from exercising revisional powers.
Hence, following order :
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
