JYOTI SANDEEP DHAMAPURKARversusSANDIP EKNATH DHAMAPURKAR

2026:BHC-AUG:1652


                                                                      CriRevn-233-2025
                                                 -1-

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2025

                Jyoti w/o Sandeep Dhamapurkar
                Age : 45 Years, Occ : Housewife,
                R/o : Tushar Bapu Pradhan,
                Rameshwar Colony, Mehrun, Jalgaon,
                Taluka and District Jalgaon.                     … Applicant.

                      Versus

                Sandip s/o Eknath Dhamapurkar
                Age : 47 Years, Occ : Service,
                R/o : Building No 03/209, 3rd Floor,
                Pratikshanagar, Old Mahada Building,
                Near Mala Garden, Above Bhavrao Patil
                School, Sion (E), Mumbai – 400 022.        … Respondent
                                                 …..
                            Ms. Fatema S. Kazi, Advocate for the Applicant
                         Mr. Dharmesh J. Gogri, Advocate for the Respondent
                                                 .....

                                        CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                        Reserved on        : 16.01.2026
                                        Pronounced on      : 17.01.2026

                ORDER :


                1.    Revision petitioner-wife of present respondent, is hereby taking

                exception to the judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 passed by

                learned Family Court, Jalgaon in Petition No. E-35 of 2021,

                dismissing petitioner’s claim for maintenance sought under Section

                125 of Cr.P.C.
                                                       CriRevn-233-2025
                                  -2-

2.    Factual background of the case is, that parties herein got

married on 05.05.2019. Due to marital discord wherein blame was

shifted on each other, wife started residing separately. Subsequently,

she set up claim for maintenance by invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

on the premise that, she has no source of income and is further

unable to maintain herself. Husband has refused to maintain her in

spite of having salaried income of Rs.90,000/- per month by virtue of

his job as Assistant Professor in Junior College and thereby she set up

maintenance claim to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month.



3.    The above claim was contested by present respondent-husband

denying all allegations of being driven out of the house. He set up a

specific defence that wife left his company on her own accord as she

was keen in residing separately from in-laws. That, there was no just

reason for her to part company and he also expressed his willingness

to accept her and therefore, for all above reasons, he opposed grant of

maintenance.



4.    Learned Family Court appreciated the respective              cases

advanced by each side and vide above judgment, dismissed the claim

set up by wife, which is now subject matter of present revision.
                                                       CriRevn-233-2025
                                  -3-




5.    Learned counsel for revision petitioner would appraise this

Court of the background of the case and would submit that

indisputably parties are husband and wife. According to her, husband

failed to perform his duties towards her. He Neglected her, threatened

her and thereby maltreated her. According to her, on 16.06.2019

husband left her alone and she was left without electricity and water,

and he also did not respond to her phone calls, as a result of which

she was constrained to leave husband’s company. That, thereafter

there was total neglect to maintain and therefore, it is her submission

that, revision petitioner was compelled to seek maintenance. That,

she had no independent source and means to maintain herself and

therefore, it is pointed out that, case for grant of maintenance was

made out. She pointed out that learned Family Court failed to

consider and appreciate such facts and according to her, learned

Family Court unnecessarily took into account material and evidence

in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) for arriving

at conclusion in proceedings for maintenance. She emphasized that

only scope for Family Court was to ascertain whether in spite of

sufficient means, husband has deliberately neglected to maintain her

even when it was obligatory for him. She pointed out that husband

earns around Rs.90,000/- per month and as such, has sufficient
                                                         CriRevn-233-2025
                                   -4-

source and means to provide for maintenance, but according to her,

all such legal requirements, in spite of its existence, were not correctly

appreciated and so, she finds fault in the order of rejection of

maintenance and prays to allow the revision.



6.    Learned counsel for respondent-husband would support the

judgment of Family Court by pointing out that, firstly, wife is highly

qualified and there was evidence suggesting she doing private job.

That, moreover, she had, on her own accord, deserted husband and

therefore was disentitled to receive maintenance and on such count,

he supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the revision.



7.    This being revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., it would be

fruitful to first refer to the settled legal principles governing the said

aspect. By umpteen judgments, scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been

time and again reiterated. 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
                                                        CriRevn-233-2025
                                  -5-

     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.




8.    Bearing in mind above settled legal position, this Court is only

expected to test whether the impugned order is erroneous, illegal,

perverse and whether there is failure to appreciate the available

evidence in correct perspective or available material has not been

taken into account while passing the impugned order. Admittedly,

parties are husband and wife who seem to have got married on

05.05.2019. Record shows that initially, on application Exhibit 14,

interim maintenance was also granted to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, but

subsequently, on appearance and contest by husband-respondent, on
                                                        CriRevn-233-2025
                                   -6-

complete analysis and appreciation of evidence, there is dismissal of

main application for maintenance.



9.    Evidence of wife seems to be at Exhibit 16 and that of husband

to be at Exhibit 47. Specific case of wife was that, there was neglect to

maintain her in spite of sufficient means and sources whereas, specific

defence of husband was that, there was no neglect and that wife had

left his company on her own accord for no plausible reason. That, he

had taken steps for filing petition for conjugal rights and getting

annoyed by the same, present proceedings, including proceedings

under Domestic Violence Act were instituted.



10.   While facing cross, revision petitioner seems to have admitted

that she has acquired B.Tech. qualification. Though she initially

denied the suggestion that she was keen in residing separately than

from the joint family of husband and she insisted for separate

residence, however, it appears that learned counsel for husband

brought to her notice the evidence in the previous proceedings

instituted by her under DV Act wherein she has clearly admitted that

she insisted husband to arrange for separate flat as she was unwilling

to reside in joint family. She has also admitted that husband had

instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and she
                                                       CriRevn-233-2025
                                  -7-

further admitted that husband informed her that, she should come

and cohabit with him. To a question in cross, whether she was willing

to rejoin husband or not, she has answered that even if husband is

ready, she was not willing to cohabit with him. Therefore, her such

answers clearly suggest that she, on her own accord, is not willing to

cohabit. S



11.   Law is fairly settled that, only when there is willful neglect to

maintain, only then wife is entitled for maintenance. Here, the above

answers given by revision petitioner in the cross clearly show that in

spite of husband willing to take her back, she has herself refused to go

back to him and is further asserting neglect to maintain. Evidence and

findings recorded with regard to cruelty, neglect and financial status

put forth in the proceedings under DV Act can definitely be gone into

while considering entitlement of maintenance under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. by wife. Both the jurisdictions, though overlapping and

though scope of each of the proceedings are distinct, on the point of

maintenance, which is included in both the proceedings, evidence in

the earlier DV proceedings can definitely be gone into for deciding the

entitlement of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family

Court has committed no error in going into the evidence adduced by

wife in earlier DV proceedings and in applying the same while
                                                        CriRevn-233-2025
                                   -8-

deciding grant of maintenance. Therefore, there is no illegality or

perversity on the part of learned Family Court in refusing to grant

maintenance. No illegality or perversity is brought to the notice of this

Court in the findings and conclusion reached at by the Family Court

so as to interfere. Hence, following order :

                                ORDER

           The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.




                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre