[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pravin Vithhal Wandre vs Rakhi Pravin Wandre And Another on 7 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9484
CriRevn-353-2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 353 OF 2022
Pravin Vithhal Wandre
Age - 36 Years, Occu - Labour,
R/o 309, Vithhal Peth Bari Wada,
Teli Chowk, Old Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ... Revision Petitioner
[Husband]
Versus
1. Rakhi Pravin Wandre
Age - 28 Years, Occ - Labour, ... Wife
2. Divesh Pravin Wandre ... Son
Age - 7 Years, Occ - Education,
Under guardianship of Mother
Respondent No.1
Both R/o C/o
Mangesh (Ganesh) Shakar Khedwan,
R/o Samta Nagar, Kumar Nagar,
Sakri Road, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Shaikh Mohd. Naseer, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner
Mr. Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for the Respondents
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 05.03.2026
Pronounced on : 07.03.2026
ORDER :
1. In this revision, there is challenge to the judgment and order
passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhule dated 11.02.2021 in
Petition E No. 85 of 2019.
CriRevn-353-2022
2. Present respondent, on behalf of herself and minor, instituted
above proceedings before the Family Court, Dhule under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on allegations of being constrained to
live separately and thereafter being neglected from being maintained.
In above proceedings, learned Family Court issued notice to the
present Revision Petitioner through R.P.A.D. and on taking into
account remark over the postal envelop, proceeded to decide the
petition ex parte, i.e. on evaluating the evidence adduced by wife, and
thereby partly allowed the petition directing the present Revision
Petitioner-husband to pay Rs.5000/- to each, i.e. wife and son, by
order dated 11.02.2021, which is now subject matter of present
revision.
3. Learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would point out that,
wife had left his company on her own accord and without any just
reason and it is she who had deserted husband and therefore, is not
entitled to be maintained. He further submitted that, proceedings
went ex parte as there was no notice to the husband, and the notice
which was dispatched was on incomplete or incorrect address. That,
someone had refused to accept the said notice, however, the said
remark has been unfortunately taken into account by learned Family
CriRevn-353-2022
Court for holding it to be good service. For both above reasons, he
urges to allow the revision by setting aside the order, or prayed to
remand the matter back for fresh consideration.
4. Above application is opposed on the ground that, notice was
issued on the correct address and it was deliberately refused to be
taken. That, after waiting for sufficiently long and after adjourning
the matter several times as there was no response, trial court, after
taking note of the same in the judgment, appreciated the evidence
adduced by wife and rightly granted maintenance and so he prays to
not to disturb the impugned judgment.
5. After considering the above submissions, it emerges that in this
Revision, there is challenge to the order of Family Court granting
maintenance to the present respondents. This being revision, limited
scope is to see whether the impugned order is just, legal or it is
perverse or erroneous so as to interfere.
6. On taking re-look of the judgment, it is noticed that after
institution of above petition before the Family Court, notice was
issued to the husband, i.e. present Revision Petitioner, by way of
R.P.A.D. In para 7 of the judgment, learned Judge, Family Court has
CriRevn-353-2022
observed that envelop is returned with endorsement as 'refused to
accept' and the same is marked at Exhibit 8, and thereafter, learned
Judge, Family Court was pleased to pass order for proceeding ex
parte against husband on 14.10.2019. In para 8 of the judgment,
learned Judge, Family Court has reproduced the dates on which the
matter was posted i.e. post Covid pandemic, and it is noted that,
present Revision petitioner did not turn out or attend the matter.
Resultantly, on the strength of available evidence of wife, after
framing issues, matter has been finally decided on 11.02.2021.
7. From the order it is emerging that learned Judge, Family Court,
though took into account evidence of wife, it was put to judicial
scrutiny and after making relevant observations in para 20, thought it
fit to grant Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/- as demanded by wife.
8. Here, it is noticed that, though there is claim of no notice of
Family Court to husband, there is Exhibit 8 showing refusal to accept
and therefore learned Judge, Family Court committed no error in
passing order for proceeding in the matter ex parte. As regards to
grant of maintenance is concerned, it is tried to be submitted that,
there was no evidence on the income of husband so as to direct him
to pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondents. In her petition, wife has
CriRevn-353-2022
asserted that, by conducting business of florist, husband earns around
Rs.40,000/- per month. However, except stating so by way of
affidavit, there was no documentary evidence about such monthly
income. Though income is disputed, occupation is not refuted or
denied. Consequently, grant of Rs.5,000/- to wife and Rs.5,000/- to
son cannot be said to be exorbitant. There being no merits in the
revision, following order is passed :
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
