[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gopal Bhimrao Bondhare vs Jayshree Gopal Bondhare on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3657
REVN-318-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 318 OF 2024
Gopal Bhimrao Bondhare,
Age: 36 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Akhada Balapur,
Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli ...Applicant
Versus
Jayshree Gopal Bondhare,
Age 31 years, Occu. Home Maker,
R/o. Irrigation Colony, Ardhapur,
Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded ...Respondent
***
• Mr. M. M. Parghane, Advocate for the Applicant
• Mr. N. Y. Chavan, Advocate for the Respondent
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 28, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 29, 2026
ORDER :
1. In this Revision, Revision Petition - Husband by invoking
Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is questioning the order
passed by learned JMFC, Ardhapur in P.W.D.V. Application No. 19/2017
as well as consequential, Criminal Appeal bearing no. 15/2022 filed by
him before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, which decided
on 29.08.2024. Learned Trial Court granted relief as prayed i.e.
directing maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- to each of the Applicants
i.e. wife and both sons and also to pay compensation to the tune of
PAGE 1 OF 5
REVN-318-2024.odt
Rs.3,00,000/- in application no. 19/2017.
2. Before learned JMFC, Respondent wife for herself as well as
her two children filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 19/2017 by
invoking Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
(for short 'D.V. Act') and urged for various reliefs. The sum and
substance of the accusations are that, after her marriage with Revision
Petitioner - Husband on 29.04.2007, she was victim of domestic violence
and, therefore, she constrained to live with her parents along with her
minor children. As she had no independence source or means, she
sought various relief as prayed in the Application. Above proceedings
are opposed and contested by husband. After appreciating the respective
cases, learned JMFC was pleased to partly allow the application
directing maintenance to be paid to the tune of Rs.7,000/- to each of the
Applicants and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Criminal Appeal
no. 15/2022 preferred against said judgment, also came to be dismissed
by learned Extra-joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded by order
dated 29.08.2024.
3. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would point out
that, both Courts below erred in accepting and believing accusations
and averments raised by wife. It is his submission that, there was no
domestic violence inflicted as alleged. That, wife had left his company
PAGE 2 OF 5
REVN-318-2024.odt
on her own accord. He specifically pointed out that, there was no legally
acceptable evidence regarding income of Revision Petitioner to pay
above maintenance. He would strenuously submitted that, even while
granting exorbitant compensation to the tun of Rs.3,00,000/-, there are
no sufficient reasons assigned. He further pointed out that, even First
Appellate Court failed to reconsider and reappreciate the evidence.
Consequently, for above reasons, he urges for interference in this
Revision.
4. Learned Counsel for Respondents original Applicant wife
would support the judgments and order passed by both the Courts. It is
pointed out that, wife had pointed out in the Trial Court as well as First
Appellate Court Revision Petitioner Husband conducts business of stone
crusher and has sufficient means but he deliberately neglected to
provide for the maintenance when he was solely responsible for driving
her out of house after inflicting domestic violence. Learned Counsel for
Respondents, therefore, justifies the judgment and order passed by both
the Courts below.
5. In this Revision, there is challenge to order of grant of relief
under the provisions of D.V. Act. There is no dispute that, parties got
married on 29.04.2007 and out of their wedlock, they have two children.
Wife, in her application before Trial Court, leveled several allegations
PAGE 3 OF 5
REVN-318-2024.odt
comprising of domestic violence. She has given her own evidence, which
virtually seems to have remained unchallenged in the Trial Court.
Learned Trial Court, therefore, recorded findings that, she is victim of
domestic violence. Having found that, she was residing separately, it
was also rightly held that, as she has no means and sources to maintain
herself, she was also entitled for maintenance. True it is in the Trial
Court there was no distinct evidence and even learned Trial Court
observed so in the judgment about no income proof of accused adduced
by wife, but contentions raised by her that husband runs stone crusher
has not been denied or refuted.
6. Learned Trial Court seems to have directed maintenance of
Rs.7,000/- each of the Applicant i.e. wife and two children. However, as
pointed out, there is no distinct reasoning assigned by learned Trial
Court while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, which
apparently seems to be on higher side. Learned First Appellate Court
also has not considered said approach of learned Trial Court and,
therefore, interference to that extent is only called for.
7. This being revision, limited scope for this Court to ascertain
whether there is patent illegality, perversity or error on the part of Trial
Court as well as First Appellate Court. Re-appreciation of evidence is
not permitted. As except to the extent of grant of compensation, grant of
PAGE 4 OF 5
REVN-318-2024.odt
maintenance does not seem to be erroneous. Therefore, interference to
the limited extent is called for. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(a) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
(b) Clause 3 of judgment and order dated 09.03.2021 passed in
PWDV Application No. 19/2017 is modified to the extent of
granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakhs Only) instead of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
(c) Rest of the order to remain intact.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 5 OF 5
