SHARAD S/O. HANMANT PAWARversusKAVITA W/O. SHARAD PAWAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46594


                                                 *1*                          7appln3315o19


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3315 OF 2019
                                    IN REVNST/294/2019
                             SHARAD S/O. HANMANT PAWAR
                                          VERSUS
                       KAVITA W/O. SHARAD PAWAR AND OTHERS
                                              ...
                Shri Yenegure Apparao, Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri Dharashive M.L., Advocate for the Respondents.
                                             ...

                                    CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                    DATE : 05 October 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.            This is an application for condonation of delay in

                filing the revision application. There is delay of 03 days.


                2.            For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 03

                days is condoned. Criminal Application No.3315/2019 is

                allowed. The instant Criminal Revision Application be

                registered.


                3.            By consent of the parties, the Criminal Revision

                Application is taken up for hearing.


                4.            The applicant/ husband is challenging the order
                               *2*                      7appln3315o19


dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Latur, in PWDVA Appeal No.11/2017 whereby, the said

appeal came to be dismissed and the impugned order dated

20.01.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Ausa, in Criminal Misc.

Application No.23/2011 came to be confirmed. Vide the

impugned order dated 20.01.2017, the applicant/ husband has

been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2000/- to the respondent/

wife and Rs.1000/- each to two children.


5.          The learned advocate for the applicant submits that

the maintenance granted vide the impugned orders passed by the

learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is too

excessive and without considering the fact that the applicant

being the labourer is unable to pay the said amount of

maintenance. According to the learned advocate, both the Courts

below have not taken into consideration the earning capacity of

the applicant. Both Courts have not considered that there was no

domestic violence at the instance of the applicant and therefore,

both the Courts below are not justified in passing the impugned

orders of granting monetary relief. The learned advocate,

therefore, prays that the impugned orders be quashed and set
                                *3*                       7appln3315o19


aside being illegal.


6.           Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondents/

wife and children, strongly opposes the instant revision

application. He submits that under the proceedings under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/ husband

has been directed to pay the total amount of maintenance of

Rs.1900/- per month whereas, vide the impugned orders in this

case, he has been directed to pay the total amount of monetary

relief of Rs.4000/- per month. According to the learned advocate,

the children are school going and are on the verge of attaining

majority. The impugned order of granting monetary relief

directing the applicant to pay Rs.4000/- per month, is passed by

taking lenient view against the applicant and after considering his

earning capacity. Thus, the total amount of maintenance under

both the proceedings is around Rs.6000/- per month, which is

very meager considering day to day expenses of the wife and

school going children. Though the respondents have not

challenged the impugned order and have not sought for

enhancement of maintenance, therefore, the impugned orders be

maintained in order to meet day to day expenses of the wife and
                                *4*                       7appln3315o19


children.


7.          After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, it

is evident that the wife has also instituted the proceedings under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the

maintenance has been awarded by the learned JMFC, Ausa.

However, the husband has not paid the said maintenance

awarded under Section 125, therefore, the execution proceedings

were initiated wherein, the husband paid Rs.25,000/-. Now, the

wife has initiated the instant proceedings under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein, the

impugned order is passed directing to pay maintenance as above.


8.          It is settled position of law that the revisional

jurisdiction of this Court is limited and cannot be exercised as

second court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence, unless there is

patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the

impugned concurrent findings. Both the Courts below have

considered the evidence on record, including the applicant's

earning capacity as labourer and the day-to-day educational and

living expenses of the growing children and the wife. The

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month granted under the
                                      *5*                          7appln3315o19


      Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, even when

      read alongside the relief granted under Section 125 of the Code

      of Criminal Procedure, is reasonable and bare minimum

      requirement for survival in today's inflation conditions. The

      applicant cannot shirk his social and moral obligation to maintain

      his wife and children under any pretext like insufficient income

      or some maintenance amount granted under the proceedings

      under Section 125. In this case, it is found that the amount of

      Rs.4000/- per month has been rightly granted by the Courts

      below considering the evidence brought on record. Consequently,

      in the absence of any procedural or legal infirmity in the

      concurrent orders of the Courts below, no interference is

      warranted under revisional jurisdiction. As no legal strong

      ground has been pointed out by the learned advocate for the

      applicant to entertain the instant revision, therefore, I find that

      the instant revision application deserves to be dismissed.


      9.          The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.




kps                            ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )