Bombay High Court
Atul S/O Gajanan Kandele vs Sau. Lakshmi W/O Atul Kandele on 20 February, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:2455
1 8revn185.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2024
APPLICANT Atul s/o Gajanan Kandele,
(Ori. Respondent) Aged about 31 years, Occupation -
Private, R/o Vastu Nagar,
Ashok Nagar, Nashik.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT Sau. Lakshmi w/o Atul Kandele,
(Ori. Petitioner) Khandve, aged about 27 years, Occu:-
Private, R/o Chaitanyawadi, C/o
Sudhakar Girhe, Sagwan, Buldana,
District 443001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, counsel for applicant.
None for the respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 20/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel Mr. S. V. Kulkarni for the applicant.
3. By this revision, the applicant has challenged the
rkn
2 8revn185.2024.odt
judgment and order of grant of maintenance passed by the Family
Court Buldana in Petition No. E-62/2023 dated 23/10/2024.
4. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for
disposal of the revision application, are as under;
The non-applicant and the applicant are legally
wedded wife and their marriage was solemnized on 04/06/2021
at Panhera Khedi, Tq. Motala, District Buldana as per Hindu Rites
and Religion. The matrimonial relationship is still in existence.
5. As per the contention of the non-applicant, after
marriage, she resumed the cohabitation at the house of the present
applicant. However, she was not treated well, and she was
subjected to discriminatory behavior. Initially, she has tolerated the
said ill-treatment; subsequently, she has filed the report under
Sections 498-A, 323, 500, and 504 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, she has also filed the
proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, and thereafter, she filed this application for
grant of maintenance. As far as the contention, she was ill-treated
by the present applicant and his family members by asking her for
money to purchase a car, as well as also ill-treated by causing
rkn
3 8revn185.2024.odt
mental and physical cruelty, and on 09/11/2021, she was driven
out of the house, and since then, she is residing at her parents
house.
6. It is contended that since January 2012, she shifted to
Buldana and was admitted into the competitive exam classes for
recruitment in Police Department. She is depending on the help of
her parents, and it is difficult for her to survive, and therefore, she
claimed maintenance.
7. On the other hand, the said application is strongly
opposed by the present applicant by filing a written statement. He
submitted that the non-applicant never turned to cohabit with
him, and she never resided at Buldhana, and therefore, he filed a
divorce petition bearing HMP No. 119/2023 on 05/12/2023. On
05/08/2022, the non-applicant lodged the false report against him
at Dhamangaon Police Station. Thus, it is submitted that it was the
non-applicant who has refused him and left the matrimonial house
without any sufficient reason, and therefore, the application for
grant of maintenance deserves to be rejected.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and
after giving sufficient opportunity to the non-applicant to appear
rkn
4 8revn185.2024.odt
before this Court, as she fails to appear, the matter is taken for
final disposal.
9. Learned counsel, Mr. Sunil Kulkarni for the applicant,
reiterated the contention and submitted that the applicant is
drawing only a salary of Rs. 21,000/-, and the Family Court has
not considered that the applicant has other responsibilities
towards his parents. He has to incur the expenses towards his
expenses also, and without considering the same, the maintenance
was granted.
10. He further submitted that, in fact, the non-applicant
never resumed the cohabitation, and therefore, no question of
refusal and neglect arises. In view of that, the application deserves
to be allowed, but the Family Court has not considered the same
and granted the maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/-, which is expensive
and exorbitant.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and on
perusal of the impugned judgment as well as other evidence on
record, it is to be seen whether the applicant succeeded in proving
that she is subjected for ill-treatment and therefore, she has valid
reasons to stay separately and claim a maintenance. To prove the
rkn
5 8revn185.2024.odt
claim, the applicant examined herself by filing an affidavit of
examination-in-chief vide Exhibit No. 40, and she reiterated the
contention. She is cross-examined at length. During her cross-
examination, it has come on record that she has lodged the report
under Section 498-A.
She denied that the application as no source of
income and he has no agricultural land, and only drawing the
salary of Rs. 21,000/-.
12. The non-applicant has also adduced his evidence and
he reiterated the contention that except the salary, there is no
other income he is drawing and therefore, the non-applicant has
not resided along with him. Thus, the non-applicant herself has
withdrawn from his company, and therefore, she is not entitled for
maintenance. He is also cross-examined at length. During cross-
examination, he admitted that he has prefered a petition for
dissolution of marriage. He stated that he is not aware of which
class the non-applicant is taking tuition for and earning money.
13. He further admitted that there is a 498-A complaint
lodged against him and the rest of the contentions are denied by
him, but he admitted that he is working in a company, Glenmark
rkn
6 8revn185.2024.odt
Pharmaceuticals Limited, as a Training Officer and drawing a
salary of Rs. 21,000/-. He submitted that his parents are
dependent upon him.
14. On the basis of the said evidence, the salary slip as
well as the 7/12 extract of the agricultural field, which is in the
name of the father of the present applicant, the amount of
maintenance was granted.
15. The non-applicant has not appeared, though notice is
served upon her. The object of Section 125 Code of Criminal
Procedure is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to
protect women and children, falling within the constitutional
sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.
Thus, the objective of the provision, then and now, is to assist the
financial assistance to the destitute wives, children, and parents
who are left by their relatives. The Section 125 Code of Criminal
Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, and
financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial house for
the reasons provided in the provision, so that some suitable
arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself
and also her children, if they are with her. It was the concept of
rkn
7 8revn185.2024.odt
subsistence, which did not necessarily mean to lead the life of an
animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace, and
roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else, and the wife
would be entitled to lead a life in a similar manner as she would
have lived in the house of her husband. Thus, the inherent and
fundamental principle behind Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure is financial assistance to the women who suffer because
of the desertion at the hands of her husband, who is compelled to
live her matrimonial house. As per the law, she is entitled to lead
life in similar manner as she could have in the house of her
husband, and as long as she held entitled to grant of maintenance
within the parameters of Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity.
Lastly, it is to be considered that sufficient means has to pay the
maintenance, the wife for living separately for one or the other
reason.
16. In the light of the above principles, if the evidence of
the present case is considered, the non-applicant has left the
matrimonial house, as further allegations were made that she was
ill-treated. This fact is supported by her report filed under Section
rkn
8 8revn185.2024.odt
498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, wherein she has alleged that
after marriage she was ill-treated for the demand of money to
purchase the plot and to purchase the car.
17. Learned counsel, Mr. Sunil Kulkarni for the applicant,
submitted that the applicant and his family members are already
acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860. There is no dispute as to the fact that to prove the
offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860,
prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But
considering the evidence of the victim, it is apparent that the wife
has sufficient reason to stay separate and to leave the matrimonial
house.
18. The intention of the present applicant can be gathered
from the circumstances that he has immediately preferred an
application for dissolution of marriage bearing Case No. 119/2023
in Civil Court, Malkapur. As far as his efforts to bring or fetch back
his wife, i.e. non-applicant is concerned, no efforts are taken by
him to fetch back the wife to cohabit with him. Thus, considering
the evidence on record, the refusal and neglect, and the statement
and the evidence of the non-applicant, it is sufficient to say that
rkn
9 8revn185.2024.odt
there is a sufficient reason for the non-applicant to stay separately
from her husband.
19. As far as quantum is concerned, it is an admitted
position that the applicant is serving as a Trainee in Glenmark
Company and drawing a salary of Rs. 21,565/-. The salary
certificate is on record. The impugned judgment also discloses that
the 7/12 extract, which is filed on record, is in the name of his
father, and it shows that the family is having agricultural land and
there is an income from the said agricultural land also. Thus,
considering the income from the agricultural land and salary, the
Family Court has granted maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/-. At the time
of fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court has to consider
the status of the husband, as the wife is also entitled to lead the
life as per the status of the husband, and therefore, considering the
same, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is an appropriate amount.
20. Moreover, the non-applicant has incurred the
expenses towards her daily needs as well as food and clothes, and
therefore, I do not think that the amount of maintenance granted
by the Family Court is exorbitant or excessive.
Thus, the revision has no merits, and being a revision
rkn
10 8revn185.2024.odt
is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following order:
The revision application is dismissed.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/03/2025 15:33:19
