[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bharat Keshav Ugale And Others vs Somprabha Bharat Ugale And Others on 6 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9364
REVN-45-2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2023
1. Mr. Bharat Keshav Ugale,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agriculturist,
2. Mrs. Ashabai Keshav Ugale,
Age : 67 years, Occu. : Agriculturist,
3. Mr. Keshav Tukaram Ugale,
Since Deceased Through LR's
i.e. Applicant Nos.1 & 2,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Applicant
(Orig. Opponent)
Versus
1. Somprabha Bharat Ugale,
Age : 39 years, Occu. : Household,
2. Prathmesh Bharat Ugale,
Age : 21 years, Occu. : Education,
3. Abhishek Bharat Ugale,
Age : 19 years, Occu. : Education,
Nos.1 to 3, All R/o. Bhatkudgaon,
Tal. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar,
4. Savita Bharat Ugale,
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Akhatwade, Tal. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondents
(Orig. Applicant & Opp. No.2)
.....
Mr. Nikhil S. Jaju, Advocate for Revision Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj A. Bharat, Advocate for Respondents.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 04 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06 MARCH 2026
REVN-45-2023
-2-
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant revision arises out of judgment and order passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated
30.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2018 arising out of
judgment and order dated 12.02.2018 passed by learned J.M.F.C.
Shevgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No. 304 of 2014.
2. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would point out
that, wife on behalf of herself and two sons instituted Domestic
Violence proceedings by invoking provisions under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "Domestic
Violence Act"). That, said proceedings were partly allowed by learned
J.M.F.C. Shevgaon by its order dated 12.02.2018. However,
according to learned counsel, there is no grudge on account of grant
of compensation to children and present revisionist confined only to
the challenge of entitlement of wife to receive compensation, more
particularly, in the light of she having secured job as 'Anganwadi
Sevika' and earning over Rs.13,000/- per month. He pointed out that,
there is affidavit placed on record by revision petitioner along with
certificate issued by wife's employer. Thus, according to him, wife
has means and source for her maintenance, and therefore, according
to him, both learned J.M.F.C. as well as learned First Appellate Court,
which confirmed the order of learned trial Court, erred in granting
REVN-45-2023
compensation. Primarily objection of learned counsel in this revision
is non consideration of job, employment and earnings of wife from
continuous service of over 17 years.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel seeks
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the
case of Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy v. M. Devaki, 2003 (1) CTC 723
and the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in
the case of Prathapan S/o. Gopalan, Thiruvonam v.
Susobhanakumari, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 1231.
3. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent - wife
would justify the order of both learned trial court as well as learned
First Appellate Court. According to him, both courts below have
correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. He would
point out that, there being concurrent findings, this court is
precluded from interfering in revision. He would specifically point out
that, though wife is shown to be in employment, he emphasizes that,
what wife receives is mere honorarium and not salary, and moreover,
it is not permanent employment.
4. Heard. It being a revision, there is limited scope for this
Court to see whether there is any patent illegality, perversity, or
error on the part of the learned trial Court while passing the
REVN-45-2023
impugned order. The scope of section 397 of Cr.P.C. is repeatedly
dealt by the Hon'ble Apex court in numerous 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 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
REVN-45-2023
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."
5. Record shows that, the respondent wife, for herself as
well as her two sons, instituted Criminal Misc. Application No.304 of
2014 before learned J.M.F.C by invoking provisions under sections
12, 15, 17 to 20, 23 and 26 of Domestic Violence Act levelling
allegations of domestic violence and seeking multiple reliefs
thereunder and she found favour in securing order, wherein
directions were given to husband present revision petitioner, who
pay Rs.4,000/- per month to wife and Rs.3,000/- each per month to
both the sons since 01.12.2014.
6. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would
strenuously submit that, there is no dissatisfaction for grant of
amount to children, but his fundamental objection is for grant of
Rs.4,000/- per month to wife, and according to him, she is receiving
REVN-45-2023
Rs.13,390/- for rendering work of 'Anganwadi Sevika'.
7. Affidavit along with above said certificate dated
24.02.2026 issued by The Child Development Project Office, (CDPO)
Shegaon is placed on record, which shows that present respondent
(wife) is working as 'Anganwadi Sevika' since 20.11.2009 and is
being paid honorarium to the tune of Rs.13,390/- per month. It is
clearly stated in the certificate that the said amount is by way of
honorarium.
8. Here, as pointed out by learned counsel for respondents,
there is no fix employment and moreover, according to him, it is
temporary service, which could be terminated at any point of time.
Moreover, according to him, above amount is not towards
maintenance, but towards compensation for being victim of domestic
violence.
9. Going by the operative part, it is clear that, respondent
No.1 is shown to be beneficiary of Rs.4,000/- per month under section
20(1)(d) of the Domestic Violence Act. For ready reference, the same
is reproduced as under :-
"20. Monetary relief. - (1) While disposing of an
application under sub section (1) of section 12, the
Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay
REVN-45-2023
monitory relief to meet the expenses incurred and
losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any
child of the aggrieved person as a result of the
domestic violence and such relief may include but is
not limited to -
(a) xxxxxx
(b) xxxxxx
(c) xxxxxx
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as
her children, if any, including an order under or in
addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of
Cr.P.C., 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time
being in force."
10. The above definition explicitly shows that, it is a
monitory relief, which is different from maintenance, but it can be in
addition to an order of 125 Cr.P.C. and is generally granted to meet
the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person,
as a result of domestic violence.
11. Honorarium is admittedly not a salary and in legal
parlance, it is a fee payable for services which are not fixed, in
contrast to salary, which is always regular and on a contractual
basis. Here, wife is not shown to be absorbed as "Anganwadi Sevika"
by issuing any appointment letter, nor there is a contractual
agreement.
REVN-45-2023
12. Here, learned J.M.F.C. recorded evidence in domestic
violence proceedings and has recorded a finding that, wife is a victim
of domestic violence. Said available material and evidence has been
re-appreciated by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Thus, there are concurrent findings. As discussed above, though wife
is shown to have source of income, as stated above, it is by way of
mere honorarium and it is not a fixed salary. Moreover, the relief
granted is monetary relief, on account of being victimized by
Domestic Violence. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order : -
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
