[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pravin Vishram Bhadane vs Jayashree W/O. Pravin Bhadane And ... on 9 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5504
CriRevn-26-2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2021
Pravin s/o Vishram Bhadane
Age : 48 years, Occu : Business,
R/o. 6/B, Gandhinagar, Dhule,
Road, Nandurbar, District Nandurbar. ... Applicant
Versus
1. Sou. Jayashree w/o Pravin Bhadane,
Age : 38 years, Occu : Household,
R/o. 15, Z.P. Colony, Deopur Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule.
2. Himani d/o Pravin Bhadane
Age : 16 years, Occu : Education.
3. Mayuri d/o Pravin Bhadane
Age : 13 years, Occu : Education ... Respondents
(Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in custody
of the applicant)
.....
Mr. Ruchir S. Wani, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Joslyn Menezes h/f Mr. P. S. Paranjape, Advocate for the
Respondent.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 05.02.2026
Pronounced on : 09.02.2026
ORDER :
1. In this revision, the original opponent-husband of present
respondent no.1, questions the legality and sustainability of the
judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed in Petition E No. 40 of
2018 invoked for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
CriRevn-26-2021
2. Present respondent wife instituted above proceedings on the
premise that she was married to the revision petitioner on 08.07.2003
and out of their wedlock they have children. She stated that few days
after marriage, husband put up demand of Rupees ten lakh for
business and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. That,
he was of dubious character and moreover, he had evicted her from
the house and in spite of giving understanding and settlement, he
brought her back but again continued the same ill-treatment and
finally, on 11.03.2016 she was beaten and driven out of the house
and since then, she is residing separately.
3. Specific case of the respondent wife was that husband runs
automobile agency/dealership, and also has other landed as well as
agricultural property and thereby she claimed Rs.70,000/- per month
maintenance for herself as well as Rs.30,000/- each for both
daughters.
4. Above proceedings were resisted by present revision petitioner
by filing written statement at Exhibit 19 denying all allegations and
leveling counter allegations against wife to be of quarrelsome nature
and to be short-tempered and she being treated by psychiatrist and
that, when she has left his company without just and sufficient cause,
she to be not entitled for maintenance.
CriRevn-26-2021
5. Taking above case and counter-case into consideration as well
as appreciating the evidence adduced by both parties, learned Judge,
Family Court was pleased to grant maintenance to the present
respondent wife to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month and also
directed the husband to pay arrears vide judgment and order dated
20.12.2019, which is now the subject matter of instant revision.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would point out that
wife had left the house without just and sufficient cause and
therefore, she was not entitled to receive maintenance. He further
pointed out that, though at that time husband was having dealership
of tractor, now he no more has the same and he now only works as a
broker and as such, there is no income as he used to earn earlier.
That, he also has liability of children, who are with him, as well as his
father. That, he needs expenses for education of children as well as
medical expenses for old aged father and therefore, according to him,
now his actual income having sufficiently reduced on account of loss
of dealership, he urges to reduce the quantum. He further pointed out
that already wife is beneficiary of maintenance vide proceedings
under the Domestic Violence Act and for above reasons, he urges for
indulgence in this revision.
CriRevn-26-2021
7. Learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order of the
Family Court which, according to him, is on complete appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence and the same needs no interference.
8. Heard. Perused the record including the impugned order dated
20.12.2019. It seems that respondent/wife had instituted proceedings
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself as well
as two daughters, who were at that time aged 12 years and 9 years
respectively. In her evidence, she has narrated all the contents of her
petition. In spite of being cross-examined, the same has not been
rendered doubtful so as to discard or doubt her testimony. Moreover,
husband has not refuted or denied that, at that time he was having
dealership of tractor and was also working as a broker. Though it is
tried to be submitted before this Court that the dealership is lost, on
Court query, learned counsel submitted that there is no documentary
evidence regarding having lost such dealership or it to be no more
with him.
9. Record shows that in support of income of husband, wife has,
apart from deposing herself at Exhibit 11, placed on record income
tax returns and 7/12 extract. Such documentary evidence is not
challenged by the husband. Admittedly, relations between the parties
CriRevn-26-2021
are strained and they are residing separately. There is nothing to
show that wife has her own independent source and means to
maintain herself as well as her daughters. Learned Family Court
seems to have awarded Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance, that too
only to the wife. Considering the expenses required for bare minimum
survival, more particularly when husband is shown to be having
dealership of tractor and doing brokerage, such quantum cannot be
said to be exorbitant. Therefore, findings of the Family Court cannot
be said to be erroneous or without any evidence.
10. In revision, only scope for this Court is to test the legality and
sustainability of the impugned order. No apparent error is brought to
the notice of this Court in the impugned order so as to interfere.
There being no merit in the revision, following order is passed :
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
