[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jyoti Sandeep Dhamapurkar vs Sandip Eknath Dhamapurkar on 17 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1652
CriRevn-233-2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2025
Jyoti w/o Sandeep Dhamapurkar
Age : 45 Years, Occ : Housewife,
R/o : Tushar Bapu Pradhan,
Rameshwar Colony, Mehrun, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ... Applicant.
Versus
Sandip s/o Eknath Dhamapurkar
Age : 47 Years, Occ : Service,
R/o : Building No 03/209, 3rd Floor,
Pratikshanagar, Old Mahada Building,
Near Mala Garden, Above Bhavrao Patil
School, Sion (E), Mumbai - 400 022. ... Respondent
.....
Ms. Fatema S. Kazi, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. Dharmesh J. Gogri, Advocate for the Respondent
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 16.01.2026
Pronounced on : 17.01.2026
ORDER :
1. Revision petitioner-wife of present respondent, is hereby taking
exception to the judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 passed by
learned Family Court, Jalgaon in Petition No. E-35 of 2021,
dismissing petitioner's claim for maintenance sought under Section
125 of Cr.P.C.
CriRevn-233-2025
2. Factual background of the case is, that parties herein got
married on 05.05.2019. Due to marital discord wherein blame was
shifted on each other, wife started residing separately. Subsequently,
she set up claim for maintenance by invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
on the premise that, she has no source of income and is further
unable to maintain herself. Husband has refused to maintain her in
spite of having salaried income of Rs.90,000/- per month by virtue of
his job as Assistant Professor in Junior College and thereby she set up
maintenance claim to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month.
3. The above claim was contested by present respondent-husband
denying all allegations of being driven out of the house. He set up a
specific defence that wife left his company on her own accord as she
was keen in residing separately from in-laws. That, there was no just
reason for her to part company and he also expressed his willingness
to accept her and therefore, for all above reasons, he opposed grant of
maintenance.
4. Learned Family Court appreciated the respective cases
advanced by each side and vide above judgment, dismissed the claim
set up by wife, which is now subject matter of present revision.
CriRevn-233-2025
5. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would appraise this
Court of the background of the case and would submit that
indisputably parties are husband and wife. According to her, husband
failed to perform his duties towards her. He Neglected her, threatened
her and thereby maltreated her. According to her, on 16.06.2019
husband left her alone and she was left without electricity and water,
and he also did not respond to her phone calls, as a result of which
she was constrained to leave husband's company. That, thereafter
there was total neglect to maintain and therefore, it is her submission
that, revision petitioner was compelled to seek maintenance. That,
she had no independent source and means to maintain herself and
therefore, it is pointed out that, case for grant of maintenance was
made out. She pointed out that learned Family Court failed to
consider and appreciate such facts and according to her, learned
Family Court unnecessarily took into account material and evidence
in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) for arriving
at conclusion in proceedings for maintenance. She emphasized that
only scope for Family Court was to ascertain whether in spite of
sufficient means, husband has deliberately neglected to maintain her
even when it was obligatory for him. She pointed out that husband
earns around Rs.90,000/- per month and as such, has sufficient
CriRevn-233-2025
source and means to provide for maintenance, but according to her,
all such legal requirements, in spite of its existence, were not correctly
appreciated and so, she finds fault in the order of rejection of
maintenance and prays to allow the revision.
6. Learned counsel for respondent-husband would support the
judgment of Family Court by pointing out that, firstly, wife is highly
qualified and there was evidence suggesting she doing private job.
That, moreover, she had, on her own accord, deserted husband and
therefore was disentitled to receive maintenance and on such count,
he supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the revision.
7. This being revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., it would be
fruitful to first refer to the settled legal principles governing the said
aspect. By umpteen judgments, scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been
time and again reiterated. 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
CriRevn-233-2025
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.
8. Bearing in mind above settled legal position, this Court is only
expected to test whether the impugned order is erroneous, illegal,
perverse and whether there is failure to appreciate the available
evidence in correct perspective or available material has not been
taken into account while passing the impugned order. Admittedly,
parties are husband and wife who seem to have got married on
05.05.2019. Record shows that initially, on application Exhibit 14,
interim maintenance was also granted to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, but
subsequently, on appearance and contest by husband-respondent, on
CriRevn-233-2025
complete analysis and appreciation of evidence, there is dismissal of
main application for maintenance.
9. Evidence of wife seems to be at Exhibit 16 and that of husband
to be at Exhibit 47. Specific case of wife was that, there was neglect to
maintain her in spite of sufficient means and sources whereas, specific
defence of husband was that, there was no neglect and that wife had
left his company on her own accord for no plausible reason. That, he
had taken steps for filing petition for conjugal rights and getting
annoyed by the same, present proceedings, including proceedings
under Domestic Violence Act were instituted.
10. While facing cross, revision petitioner seems to have admitted
that she has acquired B.Tech. qualification. Though she initially
denied the suggestion that she was keen in residing separately than
from the joint family of husband and she insisted for separate
residence, however, it appears that learned counsel for husband
brought to her notice the evidence in the previous proceedings
instituted by her under DV Act wherein she has clearly admitted that
she insisted husband to arrange for separate flat as she was unwilling
to reside in joint family. She has also admitted that husband had
instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and she
CriRevn-233-2025
further admitted that husband informed her that, she should come
and cohabit with him. To a question in cross, whether she was willing
to rejoin husband or not, she has answered that even if husband is
ready, she was not willing to cohabit with him. Therefore, her such
answers clearly suggest that she, on her own accord, is not willing to
cohabit. S
11. Law is fairly settled that, only when there is willful neglect to
maintain, only then wife is entitled for maintenance. Here, the above
answers given by revision petitioner in the cross clearly show that in
spite of husband willing to take her back, she has herself refused to go
back to him and is further asserting neglect to maintain. Evidence and
findings recorded with regard to cruelty, neglect and financial status
put forth in the proceedings under DV Act can definitely be gone into
while considering entitlement of maintenance under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. by wife. Both the jurisdictions, though overlapping and
though scope of each of the proceedings are distinct, on the point of
maintenance, which is included in both the proceedings, evidence in
the earlier DV proceedings can definitely be gone into for deciding the
entitlement of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family
Court has committed no error in going into the evidence adduced by
wife in earlier DV proceedings and in applying the same while
CriRevn-233-2025
deciding grant of maintenance. Therefore, there is no illegality or
perversity on the part of learned Family Court in refusing to grant
maintenance. No illegality or perversity is brought to the notice of this
Court in the findings and conclusion reached at by the Family Court
so as to interfere. Hence, following order :
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
