SOPAN RAMCHANDRA KAJALEversusVANITA SOPAN KAJALE AND ORS

                                                            903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc


                                                                   Rohit Ghuge


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3077 OF 2024

Sopan Ramchandra Kajale                                         … Petitioner

      Versus
Vanita Sopan Kajale & Ors.                                      …Respondents

                                 WITH
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3078 OF 2024

Sopan Ramchandra Kajale                                         … Petitioner

      Versus
Vanita Sopan Kajale & Ors.                                      …Respondents
_______________________________________________________________


Mr. Narayan Rokade a/w Mr. Ramchandra Wagh, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Rahul Motkari a/w Ms. Mansi Pawar, for Respondent No. 1 in both
Writ Petitions.
_______________________________________________________________

                                 CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                 DATED : 06 AUGUST 2026

P.C.:


1.      Heard, Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner,    Mr.   Rahul   Motkari,       learned   Counsel   appearing      for

Respondent No.1 and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.



                                        1
                                                          903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc


2.     The Petitioner is challenging in Writ Petition No. 3078 of 2024

the order dated 15th December 2021 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class (“JMFC”), Chandwad, in Miscellaneous Criminal

Application No. 16 of 2016 filed under the Provisions of the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the order dated

03rd January 2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad

in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2022. By the impugned order dated 15 th

December 2021, the learned JMFC directed the payment of Rs.1,000/-

towards house rent and Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance per month each to

the wife and the daughter. The said order was confirmed by the learned

Appellate Court by its order dated 03rd January 2024.

3.     It is the submission of the Petitioner that the affidavit, as directed

to be filed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish vs. Neha1 has

not been filed, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be

quashed and set aside.

4.     On the other hand Mr. Motkari, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent      No.1   submitted    that,   the   Petitioner-husband        and

Respondent-wife have been residing separately for the last 10 years. He

further submitted that, as a daughter is born, the petitioner is not ready

to cohabit with the Respondent-wife. It is submitted that, in fact, the

Petitioner-husband is having relations outside the marriage and false

allegations are made against the Respondent-wife that she is in a
1 (2021) 2 SCC 324




                                      2
                                                         903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc


relationship with some other person. He submits that, in fact the

Petitioner-husband has also not filed the affidavit as directed by the

Supreme Court in the Case of Rajnish (supra).

5.    Perusal of the record shows that the learned Trial Court has

observed that, in first written statement which has been filed in the D. V.

Proceedings, no allegations were made that the Respondent-Wife was

having a relationship with some third person. Thereafter, the Petitioner-

husband has changed the Advocate and the new Advocate again filed

written statement and made the said allegations.

6.    It is required to be noted that the factual aspects on record show

that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was

solemnized on 21st March 2011 and daughter was born on 24 th August

2013. It is an admitted position that, since the birth of the daughter, the

Petitioner is not residing with the wife. The record further shows that,

the wife has single-handedly maintained the child.

7.    It is further relevant to note that the Petitioner was a Professor

and, after the filing of the D.V. Proceedings, resigned his job of professor

and claims that now he is working as an agriculturist. In fact, the

learned Trial Court found that he is getting sufficient income even as an

agriculturist. The learned Trial court has noted that, income from

Cotton, Groundnut, Bajra, Maize and Onion Crop fetches good amount

and therefore, awarded maintenance. The operative part of the order




                                     3
                                                          903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc


reads as under:-

      “1.     The application is partly allowed with cost.
      2.      The respondents are directed not to commit any acts of
              domestic violence on applicant either by approaching
              applicants or contacting applicants by means of telephone,
              mobile or any electronic means of communication.
      3.      The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One
              Thousand only) as house rent to applicant per month from
              the date of application i.e. 02-02-2016.
      4.      The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month
              (Rs. Five Thousand only) to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/-
              per month (Rs. Five Thousand only) to applicant No. 2 ife.
              Total Rs. 10,000/- to applicants as maintenance (monetary
              relief) to applicants from the date of application i.e. 02-02-
              2016.
      5.      The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
              Thousand only) as compensation to applicant.
      6.      The respondents are directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- of this
              application.
      7.      The Interim Order passed on Ex. 03 Dated 24-01-2018 stands
              vacated from today and payments made under it to applicant
              shall be adjusted accordingly.”
                                                           (Emphasis added)

8.         The Appellate Court has observed that the maintenance awarded

is reasonable and therefore, no interference in the impugned order of

the learned Trial Court is warranted.

9.         Perusal of the record shows that there is huge arrears of about

Rs.9,11,000/-. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no

interference with the impugned order is warranted under the

extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

10.        As far as Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2024 is concerned, the

challenge is to the legality and validity of order dated 01 st February



                                        4
                                                      903-WP-3077 OF 2024.doc


2024 passed by learned JMFC, Chandwad below Exhibit 38 in Criminal

M. A. No. 6 of 2022. The learned JMFC has sentenced the Petitioner to

suffer simple imprisonment for the period of six months as there is huge

default in the payment of the maintenance amount. This is a case where

the Petitioner, who was working as a Professor, resigned from his job

after the D.V Proceedings are filed and now claiming that he is an

agriculturist. He has not even been maintaining his daughter.

11.   It is the case of the Respondent- wife that, as a daughter is born,

he is not even ready to reside with her and daughter. As the huge

arrears of Rs. 9,11,000/- are there, no interference in the impugned

order under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is warranted, as the said jurisdiction is

extraordinary and discretionary.

12.   Accordingly, both Writ Petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.

20,000/- to be paid to the Respondent-wife within a period of 4 weeks

from today.



                                              [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                   5