Bombay High Court
Dinesh Prabhakarrao Digraskar vs Ashwini W/O. Dinesh Digraskar … on 10 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:14694
915-**Cri-WP-1324-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1324 OF 2021
Dinesh S/o Prabhakarrao Digraskar
Age 42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Yeshashri-45, Behind Maroti Mandir,
Trimurtinagar, Parbhani
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani ... Petitioner
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
1. Ashwini W/o Dinesh Digraskar (Kulkarni)
Age: 38 years, Occu: Household
2. Anavi D/o Dinesh Digraskar (Kulkarni)
Age 7 years, Occu: Nil,
Minor U/g of real mother i.e. Petitioner No.1
both R/o Yeshashri-45, Behind Maroti Mandir,
Trimurtinagar, Parbhani
At present Vijaynagar Housing Society,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded ...Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners)
....
Mr. G. D. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
....
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 10.06.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. G. D.
Kale, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. J. Nirmal,
the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at length.
1 of 6
(( 2 )) 915-**Cri-WP-1324-2021
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner husband takes
exception to the order dated 02.09.2020, passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Nanded, below Exh.1 in Petition No.E-40 of
2019, thereby granted interim maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month
to Respondent No.2 minor child with effect from 01.09.2020.
3. The Petitioner is the original Respondent and
Respondents are the original Petitioners in Petition No.E-40 of 2019
under Sec. 125 of Cri. P. C., instituted before the learned Family
Court, Nanded. For the sake of brevity the parties to the present
petition hereinafter will be referred in their original capacity.
4. The Petitioners have filed the Petition E-40 of 2019 under
Sec. 125 of Cri. P. C., alleging that, the Petitioner no. 1 is legally
wedded wife of the Respondent-husband and their marriage was
solemnized on 12.12.2017 as per their custom and rites prevailing in
their community. The matrimonial relations is still in subsistence.
After marriage, she cohabited with her husband Respondent. Initially,
she was treated well for the period of one year but subsequently she
was ill-treated on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry of
Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchase of vehicle. It is further alleged that, out
2 of 6
(( 3 )) 915-**Cri-WP-1324-2021
of matrimonial relations she delivered the Petitioner no. 2 female
child on 3rd October, 2018, due to which family members of the
Respondent were annoyed and the Respondent subjected her cruelty.
Though the Respondent was given understanding by her relatives but
she was neglected to maintain her and her child. Therefor, she
submitted an application with the Mahila Grievance Committee, but
nothing was happened. The Petitioner No.1 further contended that,
she has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and
her daughter. The Respondent is doing Government job and drawing
income of Rs.50,000/- p.m. Further, her husband Respondent is
getting agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a., and Rs. 20,000/-
p.m., toward rent, hence, prayed for maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per
month to each Petitioners.
5. After service of notice, the Respondent-husband filed
reply at Exh. 16 and resisted the claim of the Petitioners. The
Respondent denied about drawing salary of Rs. 50,000/- and other
income as alleged by the Petitioners. He further submitted that, his
old aged mother, who is suffering from ailment, is dependent on him
and he require to incur huge expenses toward his ailing mother. The
Respondent further contended that, he is drawing salary of
3 of 6
(( 4 )) 915-**Cri-WP-1324-2021
Rs.26,000/- per month. The Petitioner no. 1 has left his company at
her own will as she is not willing to cohabit with him, hence, the
Petitioners are not entitled for any maintenance and prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. On 2nd September, 2020, the learned Family Court, passed
an order below Exh. 1 and directed the Respondent-husband to pay
interim maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) to
Petitioner No.2 minor daughter from 1 st September, 2020. Being
aggrieved by said order of interim/ad-hoc maintenance, the
Respondent-husband invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Kale, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/
Respondent-husband vehemently canvassed that, although marriage
between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on
12.12.2017, Respondent No. 1, the wife, left the Petitioner’s company
just three months later, and thereafter there were no any
cohabitation. Moreover, Respondent No.1/wife never informed him
about her conceiving and giving birth to the Respondent No. 2 out of
their matrimonial relations. The Petitioner/husband is not natural
4 of 6
(( 5 )) 915-**Cri-WP-1324-2021
father of Respondent No.2. Under these circumstances, unless and
until Respondent No.1 proves paternity of the Respondent No.2, the
Petitioner cannot be held entitled to pay the maintenance. Therefore,
the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not
justifiable, hence, prayed for quash and set aside the same.
8. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of
the Petitioner, I have gone through the record as well as reply filed by
the Petitioner in Petition No.E-40 of 2019 at Exh.16. In entire reply,
the Petitioner has not denied about solemnization of marriage
between him and Respondent No.1 on 12.12.2017. On the other
hand, the Petitioner admitted about cohabitation of Respondent No.1
with him for a period of three months. In additional say, the
Petitioner himself stated that Respondent No.1-wife left his company
on 13.03.2018 and he lodged a missing report of Respondent No.1
wife with Nanalpeth Police Station, District Parbhani. The Petitioner
has not specifically denied about paternity of Respondent No.2 child.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well
as considering beneficial provisions of Sec. 125 of Cri. P. C., the
learned trial Court passed the impugned order at the initial stage and
directed the Petitioner-husband to pay interim/ad-hoc maintenance
5 of 6
(( 6 )) 915-**Cri-WP-1324-2021
@ of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand only) per month to Respondent
No.2 child, which does not appear illegal, bad in law. Therefore, I do
not fiend any substantial ground to interfere with the impugned
order, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link