[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Achit Ranpise vs Mangal W/O Sunil Ranpise on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2043
-1- REVN-147-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2023
Sunil S/o. Achit Ranpise,
Age : 29 years, Occu. : Labour,
R/o. Sarap Gavhan, Tq. Ghansawangi,
Dist. Jalna.
At present - Shrikrushna Chal, Road No.22/34,
In front of Hindustan Faujing Company,
Annabhau Sathe Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane.
Tq. & Dist. Thane. ... Applicant/
(Orig. Respondent)
Versus
Mangal W/o. Sunil Ranpise,
Age : 25 years, Occu. : Household & Tailor,
R/o. Shrikrushna Chal, Road No. 22/34,
In front of Hindustan Faujing Company,
Annabhau Sathe Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane,
Tq. & Dist. Thane.
At Present Baban Waman Panjge,
Nipani Pakhori, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ... Respondent
(Orig. Applicant)
......
Mr. Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate for Applicant/Revision Petitioner.
Mr. Akash D. Gade, Advocate for Respondent (Appointed through Legal
Aid).
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 JANUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. Revision petitioner questions the legality of impugned
judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed by learned Family Court,
-2- REVN-147-2023
Jalna in Petition No. E-282/2021 instituted by present respondent wife
for grant of maintenance sought from Family Court, Jalna.
2. In short, present respondent-wife, who was original
petitioner in Petition No.E-282 of 2021 invoked proceedings under
section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband, the present revision
petitioner, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month,
contending that she was married to present petitioner in May 2019. After
2 to 3 months there was ill treatment to her on account of not meeting
demand of Rs.3,00,000 for purchasing four wheeler vehicle. That, in
February 2021, as she was ousted from house and was being further
neglected in spite of she having no independent source of income, she set
up above claim for grant of maintenance. Such proceedings were
contested by present petitioner denying all allegations including the
alleged ouster. He alleged that she had deserting him and he also
levelled several allegations against her. After considering the rival
contentions, learned trial court was pleased to allow the maintenance
petition directing husband to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to her apart from
awarding cost of petition.
It is the above judgment and order which is subject matter of
instant revision.
-3- REVN-147-2023
3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would point out that,
wife left petitioner's company on her own accord without just and proper
reason. That, she was quarrelsome nature. She more often and rather
regularly left his company to go to her parent's house and even declared
that the marriage was against her wish. Due to quarrel on 25.11.2019 she
left the house with all ornaments, and therefore, it is his submission that
wife having left the house on her own accord, she is not entitled for
maintenance.
4. As regards to grant of maintenance is concerned, he
submitted that, there was no evidence before learned Family Court
regarding income or occupation of revision petitioner, but still learned
Family Court has held him to be a driver and has considered his income
as Rs.15,000/- per month. That such consideration, according to learned
counsel, was in absence of oral and documentary evidence, and
therefore, he urges to set aside the impugned judgment and order by
allowing the revision.
5. Leaned counsel for respondent - wife would support the
judgment and order of learned Family Court and seek reliance on the
recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Usha Rani and
Another v. Moodudula Srinivas reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 225.
-4- REVN-147-2023
6. This being revision, while exercising powers under section
397 of Cr.P.C., this court is merely expected to test the legality, propriety
or illegality in the findings recorded by learned trial court. Such powers
are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there are
clearing errors on the face of order or there is failure and non compliance
of law. Re-appreciation is to be avoided unless findings are patently
perverse and as such, is the narrow scope of revisional court. Law
regarding the scope of revision is elucidated in catena of judgments.
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 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
-5- REVN-147-2023
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.
13. 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 inbuilt
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 stage
in the proceedings under the CrPC."
7. Keeping the above settled legal position on record, evidence
and impugned order are put to scrutiny.
8. After considering above submissions and on going through
the record, it is emerging that, parties before this court are undeniably
husband and wife, who got married on 14.05.2019. Present respondent -
wife seems to have instituted proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
for maintenance on the premises that she was ousted from house for not
-6- REVN-147-2023
meeting demand of Rs.3,00,000/- for purchase of four wheeler vehicle
and she being subjected to physical and mental cruelty and further being
neglected to be maintained. Such proceedings were contested by present
revision petitioner by filing say at Exh.13 denying in toto the contentions
and allegations raised by respondent wife in her maintenance petition.
9. Admittedly, as relations were strained, and as there was
volley of allegations against each of the parties, they are residing
separately. Revision petitioner in the trial court tried to evade liability on
the ground that wife did tailoring work and had source of income of her
own. However, the same was not substantiated. As there was no
evidence to show that the wife had left the house without just cause, and
as she had no independent means for income, she was held to be
neglected, and therefore, entitled for maintenance. Such finding of trial
court cannot be faulted at.
10. As regards to quantum is concerned, the wife asserted
husband to be earning Rs.50,000/- by working as a driver while seeking
maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas revision
petitioner husband has denied his such earning. However, it has come
from his side in the trial court that he has his own four wheeler vehicle
for which he is paying monthly installment. Therefore, this suggest that
-7- REVN-147-2023
there is force in the contention of wife that husband is earning by driving
the vehicle. As there was no distinct evidence in spite of affidavit of
parties on record, trial court was left with no other alterative, but to
consider his earning at least Rs.15,000/- which also cannot be said to be
perverse or baseless.
11. Learned trial court has granted only Rs.4,000/- per month
maintenance. The same is not either less or exorbitant and is sufficient
for a neglected wife. However, learned trial court erred or committed
error in recording above findings has not been demonstrated by revision
petitioner so as to interfere by way of exercise of revisionary power.
12. For above reasons, no case being made out on merits in
revision, the same is dismissed.
13. Fees of learned Advocate, who is appointed to represent
cause of respondent is to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub -
Committee, Aurangabad as per rules.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
