YUNUS DAGDU SHEIKHversusAJIM YUNUS SHAIKH THROUGH HER MOTHER AHEMADA ALIAS RIZWANA YUNUS SHAIKH

2026:BHC-AUG:40563


                                               *1*                       903revn342o25


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 342 OF 2025
                                 YUNUS DAGDU SHEIKH
                                        VERSUS
                      AJIM YUNUS SHAIKH THROUGH HER MOTHER
                       AHEMADA ALIAS RIZWANA YUNUS SHAIKH
                                            ...
                Shri Shaikh Md Aamir Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the Applicant.
                Advocate F.F. Shirpurkar h/f Advocate S.S. Kazi for the
                respondent.
                                            ...

                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  DATE : 03 September 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.          The applicant is challenging the judgment and order

                dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Latur, in

                Petition No.E-146/2022 whereby, the applicant is directed to pay

                interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent/

                minor child, who is aged about 14 years.


                2.          The learned advocate for the applicant states that the

                mother of the respondent child was married to the applicant on

                20.01.2011. In view of certain dispute between them, she had

                filed the application before the learned JMFC, Ausa, against the

                present applicant under the Protection of Women from Domestic
                               *2*                     903revn342o25


Violence Act, 2005 for claiming maintenance for herself and

child. During the pendency of the said matter, there was

compromise between the parties in Lok-Adalat and in pursuance

of the said compromise, the mother of the respondent child

waived her right to claim future maintenance for herself and the

respondent child. On the basis of the said compromise, the

learned JMFC disposed of the application vide order dated

11.04.2015.


3.            The learned advocate for the applicant further

submits that thereafter, almost seven years have passed and the

respondent child through his mother has filed the application

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on

27.09.2022 before the learned Family Court, Latur. According to

the learned advocate, the wife has suppressed before the learned

Family Court the fact that she had waived the right to claim

maintenance. The said application u/s 125 was resisted by the

present applicant by filing the reply. However, in the meantime,

on 15.03.2024, the respondent child through mother filed interim

application claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/- from the present

applicant. The applicant herein also filed say to the said
                                 *3*                      903revn342o25


application thereby, denying his liability to pay maintenance in

view of the compromise took placed before the learned JMFC.

However, the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated

30.08.2025 directed the present applicant to pay Rs.3000/- per

month maintenance to the respondent child.


4.             According to the learned advocate for the applicant,

the impugned order is patently illegal. The wife has waived her

right to claim maintenance for herself and for her child. Under

the compromise, the wife has obtained custody of the child.

Therefore, by filing the application belatedly after seven years,

the respondent child is not entitled to claim maintenance.

Learned advocate, therefore, submits that the impugned order be

quashed and set aside by allowing the instant revision

application.


5.             Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondent

submits that the learned Family Court, by way of interim

maintenance, has directed the present applicant to pay Rs.3000/-

per month towards maintenance of the respondent child. As of

now, the respondent child is pursuing his education in 7 th

standard. In any case, the wife is not entitled to waive
                                      *4*                      903revn342o25


      maintenance on behalf of the child. According to the learned

      advocate, the right of waiving maintenance will be applicable in

      case of maintenance of wife and not the child. There is nothing

      wrong or error in the impugned order passed by the learned

      Family Court. Moreover, the child is facing hardship in order to

      meet day to day expenses, therefore, he is totally dependent upon

      maintenance being provided by the applicant. As such, learned

      advocate for the respondent prays that the instant revision being

      devoid of merit be dismissed.


      6.          After considering the rival submissions, it is clear

      that the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order,

      has directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- per

      month to the child. Admittedly, this Court is of the opinion that

      though there is compromise, however, the wife is not entitled to

      waive maintenance on behalf of the child. Since this is an interim

      arrangement, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant

      revision being devoid of merit. There is no error or perversity in

      the impugned order. As such, the Criminal Revision Application

      is dismissed.


kps                            ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )