[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mahesh Suvalal Surana And Another vs Ashwini W/O. Mahesh Surana And Another on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3654
REVN-27-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2024
1. Mahesh S/o Suvalal Surana
Age - 48 years, Occu - Labourer
2. Pramila W/o Suvalal Surana
Age 74 years, Occu - Nil
Both R/o - Parag Apartment, Satbhai Lane,
Ahmednagar, Tq & Dist. - Ahmednagar ...Applicants
Versus
1. Ashwini W/o Mahesh Surana,
Age: 30 years, Occu- Labourer,
2. Aarti D/o Mahesh Surana,
Age: 7 years, Occu - Nil
Rsep. No. 2 is minor under guardianship of
resp. no.1
Both R/o - Sahilrao Housing Society,
Tambatkar Mala, Pipeline Road, Ahmednagar
Tq and Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
***
• Mr. A. S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Applicants
• Mr. S. R. Shirsat, Advocate for the Respondents
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 27, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 29, 2026
ORDER :
1. In this Revision, Revision Petitioners - original Respondents
are taking exception to order passed by learned Sessions Judge in
PAGE 1 OF 8
REVN-27-2024.odt
Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018 arising out of judgment and order dated
21.02.2017 passed by learned JMFC, Ahmednagar in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 136/2024.
2. Above Criminal Misc. Application came to be instituted by
present Respondents on her behalf as well as on behalf of her daughter
by invoking provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (for short 'D.V. Act') seeking various reliefs and learned JMFC
partly allowed the said application directing making provision of one
room or in lieu of it, Rs.3,000/- and also awarded Rs.12,000/- to both of
them, apart from inflicting cost of litigation.
Against above judgment, husband knock the doors of
learned Appellate Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018, but he same
came to be dismissed by order dated 09.07.2020. Hence, present
Revision.
3. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioners would point out
that, undisputedly Revision Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2
husband and wife and they also have daughter. According to him, all
allegations leveled by Respondent wife are baseless and without any
evidence. According to him, at the threshold, he was not given
opportunity to contest the proceedings and, therefore, matter went
virtually ex parte against them. He further submitted that, in fact, both
PAGE 2 OF 8
REVN-27-2024.odt
parties had performed second marriage. That, there was divorce by
mutual consent and, therefore, there is no question of meeting the needs
of wife. He pointed out that, both the Courts below has not afforded him
opportunity to effectively contest the application moved by wife and,
therefore, he urges for remanding the matter back for fresh
consideration by giving him an opportunity.
4. Learned Counsel for Respondents strongly opposes the
application by pointing out that, there was maltreatment to the wife.
That, by playing fraud on her, her signatures were obtained on alleged
divorce by mutual consent. That, moreover, during cohabitation, she
was subjected to physical cruelty. That, on 10.02.2013, she was beaten
and thrown out along with the daughter and thereafter there was
neglect to maintain. Before the learned JMFC, she had adduced her
own evidence at Exhibit 14. Learned Counsel for Respondents justifies
the order of both Trial Court as well as Appellate Court and would
specifically point out that, in spite of opportunity, except causing
appearance, there was no contest to the case and evidence of wife and,
therefore, both learned Trial Court committed no error in granting
relief, which is based on trustworthy evidence. For above reasons,
Revision is sought to be dismissed.
PAGE 3 OF 8
REVN-27-2024.odt
5. Here, there is challenge to order of Appellate Court i.e.
Sessions Court while entertaining Appel under Section 29 of D.V. Act
whereby there was challenge to order passed by learned JMFC in
Criminal M.A. No. 36/2015.
6. 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
PAGE 4 OF 8
REVN-27-2024.odt
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuild restrictions is that it should not be against an
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
PAGE 5 OF 8
REVN-27-2024.odt
palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of
law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the
juridical discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
7. On going through the record, it appears that, both Revision
Petitioner No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 1 got married on 01.03.2010
and out of their wedlock and cohabitation, daughter seems to be born on
07.07.2012. Wife alleged that, husband, under influence of liquor, used
to beat her and repeatedly driven her out of house. She, in her
application before learned Trial Court, has given the dates on which
above events took place. She has specifically averred in the complaint
that, she was made to accompany husband's brother to bank for
embranchment of Rs.8,00,000/- and it was tried to be projected before
the Court that, the said amount was towards one time settlement. She
claims that, she realized that she was cheated and thereafter as she was
again maltreated and driven out of house, she resided with her parents.
She described the assets and liabilities of her husband in her
application and claimed above relief.
8. Record shows that, in spite of service, though present
Revision Petitioner appeared, he did not bother to give reply or say to
the averments raised by wife and, therefore, after giving sufficient
opportunity learned Trial Court seems to have passed no written
statement order. Consequently, learned Trial Court was left with no
PAGE 6 OF 8
REVN-27-2024.odt
other alternative but to proceed on sole evidence of wife. Learned Trial
Court granted relief as stated above in aforestated paragraphs.
9. It further appears that, the said order was challenged by
present Revision Petitioner vide Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018 but
apparently after a delayed period. Grounds raised are like leveling false
and frivolous allegations, divorce already obtained under Section 13(b)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, no evidence about violence were put forth.
10. However, record and judgment of Appellate Court also
shows that, present Revision Petitioner though appeared in the
application, he failed to file say and, therefore, again even First
Appellate Court was constrained to proceed in absence of say of
Revision Petitioner. Therefore, what is emerging is that, both before the
Trial court as well as First Appellate Court except causing appearance,
there was no contest to the accusations and allegations raised by wife.
11. In the Trial Court, present Respondent had adduced her
complete evidence, which had remained intact and unchallenged. Before
this Court, except raising a prayer that both Courts below proceeded ex
parte against him, matter is sought to be remanded for fresh trial. Such
prayer cannot be considered when both Trial Court as well as First
Appellate Court has tested the contentions raised by the wife before
PAGE 7 OF 8
REVN-27-2024.odt
said Courts. Wife's evidence remains unchallenged. Revisionist failed to
contest claim of wife. This Court does not find any plausible reason to
remand the matter for fresh consideration.
12. No case being made out in revision, the same is deserves to
be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(a) Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.
(b) Pending Criminal Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 8 OF 8
