[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Deepak Gangadhar Dadge vs Vijaya W/O. Deepak Dadge And Another on 17 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1687
REVN-31-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2024
Deepak Gangadhar Dadge
Age: 42 years, Occupation: Doctor
R/o. Shahu Chowk, Latur ...Applicant
Versus
1. Sou. Vijaya w/o Deepak Dadge
Age: 36 years, Occupation: Professor
2. Samarth @ Piyush Deepak Dadge
Being a Minor through his Guardian
i.e. Respondent No.1
Both Residing at:
C/o Asst. Professor,
Dr. Vijaylaxmi D/o Vishwanath Gaware,
Swami Ramanand Tirth (R)
Medical College, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed ...Respondents
***
• Mr. A. A. Yadkikar, Advocate for the Applicant
• Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondents
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 09, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 17, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Revision Petitioner - Husband hereby takes exception to the
judgment and order dated 31.01.2023 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Udgir in Criminal Appeal (PWDVA) No. 04/2019 arising
out of judgment and order dated 03.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Udgir in Criminal Misc. Application No.
257/2012. The learned JMFC awarded maintenance to the Respondents
PAGE 1 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
wife and son on her application, whereas, learned First Appellate Court
maintained the said order. Hence, this Revision.
2. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner - Husband, apart
from placing on record written notes of arguments, would point out that,
parties are undisputedly husband and wife, who had entered into
marital ties in May, 2010 and there is no further dispute that,
Respondent no. 2 is born out of their wedlock. According to him, due to
strained relations, Respondent Wife instituted proceedings by invoking
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(D.V. Act) in the Court of learned Magistrate alleging maltreatment and
domestic violence and thereby set up claim of Rs. 25,000/- maintenance
per month for herself as well as child. That, learned Trial Court has
disbelieved most of the allegations but has still awarded compensation.
He very emphatically submitted that, Respondent No. 1 has acquired
M.B.B.S, M.D. qualifications and she has gained employment as medical
officer in Primary health Centre. That, she has not only permanent
source of salary but also residential accommodation. She came to be
appointed through Maharashtra Public Service Commission & her gross
salary is Rs. 1,38,192/- According to him, thus, she was not at all
dependent on him and she is competent and self sufficient to maintain
herself. That, documentary evidence in the form of salary slip as well as
PAGE 2 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
affidavit of evidence strengthens such contentions. That, she is income
tax payer. According to him, learned Trial Court as well as learned First
Appellate Court have not correctly appreciated such quality of evidence
and has awarded maintenance to her, which according to him, is
erroneous, illegal and perverse. He makes a statement across the bar
that, Revision Petitioner - Husband is still ready to bear the expenses of
the child but not for wife, who has more than sufficient means to
maintenance herself. Consequently, he seeks indulgence by allowing the
revision.
3. Learned Counsel for Respondents, who also placed on record
written notes of arguments, would support and justify the orders passed
by learned JMFC as well as First Appellate Court. According to him,
domestic violence was proved and, therefore, protection orders have
been passed. He would submit that, though wife has employment, in
view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha and another, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 569, to enable wife to
maintain the same standard of living, which she was placed and
receiving while being married and he canvasses in favour of her
entitlement to receive maintenance. According to him, both the Courts
below have correctly appreciated the evidence, settled principle of law
and has committed no error whatsoever in granting maintenance.
PAGE 3 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
Lastly, he submits that, there is no merit in the revision and no
illegality committed by either of the Courts below.
4. This being revision, re-appreciation of the evidence is to be
avoid. 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
interim or interlocutory order. The court has to keep in
PAGE 4 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
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
juridical discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
PAGE 5 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
5. Here, learned Trial Court was approached by present
Respondent by invoking Section 12 of the D.V. Act and had sought
various reliefs available under Section 18 to 20 and 22. It is in such
backdrop, learned JMFC granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.
12,000/- to Respondent wife and Rs. 10,000/- to son apart from granting
Rs. 7,000/- towards rent, awarding compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-. Appeal
against the same, admittedly, stood dismissed at the hands of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, who thereby maintained the order of trial
Court.
6. There is no dispute that both Revision Petitioner and
Respondent No. 1 are qualified medical practitioners. Revision
Petitioner who is runs a hospital in Latur and thus, is a practicing
pediatrician. Undeniably, till appeal was decided, Respondent Wife after
completing her MBBS also seems to have completed her post graduation
and she does not refute that she is employed as a medical officer in
Public health Centre. Contention of wife that she is residing separately
with Respondent Son since August, 2010 is also not denied or
questioned by Petitioner Husband.
7. On one hand, while asserting financial support from
husband Respondent, Wife set up a case that, husband earns almost
PAGE 6 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
Rs.10,000/- per day from his practice and as such, he also earns Rs.
20,00,000/- from agriculture income apart from earning Rs.20,000/- from
rental income of medical shop.
In affidavit, wife claims that, she has to expend Rs. 20,000/-
towards house rent, medical expenses of son to the tune of Rs.5,000/-
and Rs.30,000/- for her own transportation and conveyance. For child,
she claims that, she is required to expend Rs.2,00,000/- towards school
fees; Rs.30,000/- for his transportation charges per annum; Rs.20,000/-
for his food & clothing and Rs.15,000/- for extra classes and tuition fees.
In her affidavit, she also claims that, she has borrowed vehicle loan and
she pays EMI to the tune of Rs.12,000/-, as well as she pays Rs.70,000/-
for housing loan. However, except stating so in the affidavit, she has not
placed on record, documentary evidence, more particularly, of housing
loan to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. Though she claims to be spending
Rs.20,000/- towards rent, her salary slip shows that, she is already a
beneficiary of House Rent Allowance. On Court's query, learned Counsel
for Respondent-Wife informed that, she is spending Rs.30,000/- for her
transportation to travel from Latur to the place of her job, but even
details of the mode of conveyance and transportation are not supplied
by her. Be it so.
Revision Petitioner Husband has placed on record before
this Court salary slip of her wife for the month of August, 2025 i.e. post
PAGE 7 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
orders passed by Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court.
This is neither refuted nor denied by Respondent Wife. Thus, as on
today wife is shown to be receiving salary of Rs. 1,38,192/-.
8. Therefore, the point central for determination is, whether
wife, who is in employment of State government and receiving salary
regularly, is at all entitled to receive maintenance and she is unable to
maintain herself.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and
Another, MANU/SC/0833/2020 has laid down the object as well as
guidelines to be followed while determining the maintenance. The ratio
i.e. laid down is even if wife is earning, it would not operate as a bar
from she being awarded maintenance by husband. In paragraph 63 of
the judgment, it seems to be clarified that, the Court has to determine
whether the income of wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain
herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the
matrimonial home, which was observed by the Apex Court in the case of
Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, MANU/SC/8141/2007.
Thus, what is emerging from above observations of Hon'ble
Apex Court is that, it is duty of the Court to also take into account the
income of a wife, who is earning and to further determine whether or
not she is capable of sustaining herself in the similar manner and
PAGE 8 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
lifestyle, which she is accustomed to while cohabiting with the husband.
9. Keeping above legal precedent in mind, here in the
considered opinion of this Court, as each case has distinct facts and
features, it is duty of this Court, to determine whether income of wife
who is earning, is at all sufficient maintain herself that too in
accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.
Here undisputedly Respondent wife is shown to be in
employment of State Government as a medical officer. Her salary slip,
as stated above, shows that she earn Rs.1,38,192/-. Though she has
narrated in her affidavit the liabilities and expenses incurred by her i.e.
under the head of she is spending Rs. 20,000/- for rent, her salary slip
itself shows that, she is availing House Rent Allowance to the tune of
Rs. 5940. Her own affidavit shows that, she has her own abode as she
claims to be paying EMI for housing loan as well as she is paying EMI
for car loan suggesting she to be also owning a car. Therefore, in terms
of lifestyle, post separation is concerned, she does seems to have her
own shelter, her own vehicle. Thus, the very essentials for comfortable
lifestyle, she apparently has her means and sources. With her above
quoted income, she definitely can maintain herself decently and with
dignity.
As regards to expenses incurred by Respondent Wife for the
PAGE 9 OF 10
REVN-31-2024.odt
son are concerned, except stating about it in her affidavit, there is no
supportive documentary evidence, however, learned Counsel for
Revision Petitioner already stated that, he is ready to continue to bear
the expenses of the child as directed by learned Trial Court and
maintained by First Appellate Court.
10. As a result of which, interference is called for in the
impugned order. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
A. Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
B. Judgment and order dated 31.01.2023 passed in
Criminal Appeal (PWDVA) No. 4/2019 to the extent of
upholding maintenance to wife/Respondent herein is set
aside.
C. Clause '2' of the order dated 03.08.2019 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No.257/2012 is modified.
Order of granting maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per
month to wife (Original Applicant No. 1) is set aside. So
also, clause '3' of the said order is set aside.
D. Revision Petitioner - Husband shall continue to pay Rs.
10,000/- for maintenance of son.
E. Rest of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2019 to
remain intact.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 10 OF 10
