PRAVIN S/O. ARJUN JADHAVversusPRANITA W/O. PRAVIN JADHAV NEE. MISS. PRANITA ASHA BANSODE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:42063


                                                                            289.17revn
                                                  (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.289 OF 2017
                                        WITH
                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2019
                                         AND
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3629 OF 2023


                 Pravin s/o Arjun Jadhav                          ….APPLICANT

                       VERSUS

                 1.    Pranita w/o Pravin Jadhav
                 2.    Mst. Siddhey s/o Pravin Jadhav
                 3.    State of Maharashtra                       ….RESPONDENTS
                                                 …..
                 Mr Hemant Surve, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr S. N. Pagare, Advocate for Respondent No.1
                 Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.3/State
                                                 …..

                                           CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 04th SEPTEMBER 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          By this revision application, the applicant/husband is

                 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 19/09/2017,

                 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-13, Aurangabad in Criminal

                 Appeal No.25/2014, vide which the learned Sessions Judge confirmed

                 the order dated 26/11/2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

                 First Class, Aurangabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.76/2013,
                                                                  289.17revn
                                   (2)

vide which, the applicant/husband has been directed to pay

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and

minor son.


2.            The   marriage    between   the    applicant/husband      and

respondent No.1/wife took place on 06/06/2010.          On 26/03/2012,

respondent No.2/son was born. Thereafter, the dispute between the

husband and wife started, and the respondent/wife started staying

separately.   On 08/01/2013, the respondent/wife filed proceedings

under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘D.V.Act’). The main allegation in the

said application was that the applicant/husband is having an extra-

marital affair with a lady, namely, Mandakini Patil. In the very said

application, the respondent/wife claimed for damages, monetary relief,

and separate accommodation.


3.            The   aforesaid   application     was   resisted     by   the

applicant/husband by filing a detailed reply. The evidence of the

parties came to be recorded. The learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, however, on 26/11/2013, without rendering a finding as to

whether there was any domestic violence or not, granted monetary

relief to the tune of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to both the respondents.
                                                             289.17revn
                                  (3)

4.          Being aggrieved by the said verdict, the applicant herein

approached the Court of Sessions by way of appeal bearing Criminal

Appeal No.25/2014.      The learned Additional Sessions Judge-13,

Aurangabad, vide her judgment and order dated 19/09/2017, dismissed

the said appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad. Hence, the

applicant has approached to this Court by filing this revision

application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Cr.P.C.)


5.          Heard Mr Surve, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr

Pagare, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned APP Mr

Bhadane for respondent No.3/State.


6.          Mr. Surve, learned Advocate for the applicant, at the very

outset, very vehemently submits that both the Subordinate Courts have

committed a gross error in law and passed the impugned judgments,

which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, there

is no evidence of domestic violence committed by the applicant. He

submits that both the Courts were required to frame the issue as

regards as to whether there exists domestic violence or not. He further

submits that the learned Trial Courts have failed to frame a specific
                                                              289.17revn
                                  (4)

issue regarding whether or not the applicant had committed acts of

domestic violence. Without framing the said issue, the learned Courts

below proceeded further to pass the impugned orders. He further

submits that, in order to grant any relief to the respondent/wife, the

learned Trial Court was required to frame a specific issue as to whether

domestic violence had occurred.


7.          Mr Surve takes this Court through the provisions of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. As per Section 12

thereof, any aggrieved person can approach the Court by filing an

application seeking appropriate relief, which may include the relief of

an order for payment of compensation or damages. He submits that

the D.V. Act is enacted to provide more effective protection to the

rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution of India, who are

victims of domestic violence of any kind, occurring within the family,

and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. He,

therefore, submits that, if the D.V. Act itself is enacted in order to

protect the effective rights of women, who are victims of violence, in

that event, it is necessary to ascertain whether there exists domestic

violence or not. The Act confers a right of remedy to wives and

women in a domestic relationship.
                                                                   289.17revn
                                   (5)

8.           Mr Surve further points out that, during her cross-

examination, the respondent/wife failed to provide any evidence

regarding the alleged extramarital affair of the applicant/husband.

Furthermore, it was the respondent/wife who had voluntarily deserted

the applicant.   He then submits that the applicant has specifically

pointed out that after the marriage, the respondent/wife had voluntarily

left his company and due to which, the applicant had also filed a

petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent/wife in

the Court. However, it is the respondent/wife who herself refused to

cohabit with the applicant/husband.            According to him, the

respondent/wife is well-educated and doing tailoring work. Therefore,

according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the impugned

judgment and orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court against the applicant, are not sustainable in the eyes of

law. He, therefore, prays for allowing this revision application by

setting aside the judgment and orders of the Courts below.


9.           Per contra, Mr. Pagre, learned Advocate for the

respondent    No.1/wife,   strongly      opposes   the   instant    revision

application. According to him, there is no error or illegality in the

orders passed by the Subordinate Courts. He submits that the

impugned judgment and orders, being correct and proper, require no
                                                                 289.17revn
                                      (6)

interference by this Court. He also submits that there are no strong

grounds to upset the findings of the learned lower Courts. He then

submits that the respondent/wife is totally dependent upon the

maintenance being provided by the applicant/husband, and also

maintaining respondent No.2/minor son, and therefore, if the

impugned orders are disturbed, it will be very difficult for the

respondent/wife to survive. Hence, he prays for the rejection of the

instant revision application.


10.          Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective

parties, I have perused the impugned judgment and orders. It has been

rightly pointed out to this Court that both the Courts below proceeded

to decide the matters without framing any specific issue for

determination regarding domestic violence. The issues framed by the

Judicial Magistrate are as under :-

अ.नु.                           मुद्दे                         निष्कर्ष
1     अर्जदार उत्तरार्थीकडु न निवारा भत्ता मिळणेचे अनुतोषस      होय
      पात्र आहे काय ?

2     अर्जदार उत्तरार्थीकडु न उदरनिर्वाह भत्ता मिळविण्याच्या    होय
      अनुतोषास पात्र आहे काय ?

3     अर्जदार नुकसान भरपाई मिळण्याचे अनुतोषास पात्र       नाही
      आहे काय ?
4     पारीत आदेश कोणता ?                            अर्ज अंशतः मंजूर
                                                                 289.17revn
                                   (7)

        Thereafter, the issues or points framed by the Appellate Court

are also required to be seen, which are as under :-

                      Points                               Findings
1.    Does applicant no.l proves that she is          In the affirmative

      having no source of income to maintain

      herself and applicant no.2?
2.    Does the applicants are entitled for              Accordingly

      maintenance, as prayed for?
2.    Does the interference of this court is           In the negative

      warranted in setting aside impugned

      order?
3.    What order?                                Appeal is dismissed as

                                                 per final order.


11.          Admittedly, neither of the Courts below has framed a

specific issue regarding whether domestic violence had occurred.

When an aggrieved person files application claiming reliefs under

Sections 12, 17, 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, it is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the said

application to frame the issue regarding whether domestic violence

occurred or not. In this respect, the Panaji Bench of this Court in the

judgment delivered in the matter of Jovita Olga Ignesia vs. Rajan

Maria Coutinho and others, 2011 (1) AIRBomR 300, observed that
                                                               289.17revn
                                   (8)

the term "domestic violence" has a very wide amplitude, as defined

under Section 3 of the Act. It includes physical abuse, sexual abuse,

verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse, which in turn, inter

alia, includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources.

In the said case, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to frame

issues regarding the reliefs claimed, hear the parties, consider the

evidence produced by the parties, apply the applicable laws, and give a

decision on each of the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Thus, this

Court set aside the order passed by the Magistrate as well as the

Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate to

decide the application afresh.


12.         In the judgment of Sunil Gangadhar Kadam and others vs.

Jayshree Sunil Kadam and others, delivered on 16/03/2023 in Criminal

Revision Application No.233/2018, this Court observed that domestic

violence is a sine qua non for reliefs to be granted to an aggrieved

person under the D.V. Act. The term "domestic violence" has been

defined in the said Act. There are various types of domestic violence,

namely, physical, mental, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic.

The burden to prove domestic violence lies on the aggrieved person. It

was further observed that, the law is well settled that a person having

remedies under various Acts may exercise them independently. The
                                                              289.17revn
                                  (9)

Domestic Violence Act is a law in addition to, and not in derogation of

the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. A wife

may simultaneously claim reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act as

well as under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

tests to prove domestic violence and refusal and neglect to maintain,

are different. There were no provisions in the Domestic Violence Act

to test refusal and neglect to maintain.     The concept of domestic

violence is specific as provided in the Domestic Violence Act. It could

not be compared with the concept under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.


13.         The respondent/wife in the case in hand, has failed to

point out that the applicant has ever refused or neglected her.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Court as well

as the Trial Court were required to arrive at a conclusion that there

exists domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Act, by

specifically framing the said issue. Both the learned lower Courts,

without framing the said issue, have proceeded further to grant

maintenance to the respondent/wife.


14.         This Court, at the Principal Seat, vide a judgment dated

04/07/2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.17/2015 in the case of Mr.
                                                              289.17revn
                                  (10)

Gurudas Sanvalo Naik vs. Mrs. Saanvi Gurudas Naik, observed that

the finding that the complainant/wife was subjected to acts of domestic

violence is a sine qua non for the Magistrate to entertain the

application and grant reliefs.


15.          In view of the above, as discussed above, the concept of

refusal or neglect and granting maintenance to a wife in a D.V. case is,

therefore, required to be decided after framing the issue as regards

domestic violence.     In the absence of a prima facie finding that

respondent No.1 was subjected to acts of domestic violence, the

impugned orders cannot be sustained. Therefore, this Court is of the

opinion that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set

aside, by directing the learned Trial Court to proceed with the

application by framing a specific issue as regards domestic violence

between the parties. Thus, the instant revision application deserves to

be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order :-

                                 ORDER


(I)    The criminal revision application stands partly allowed.

(II)   The judgment and order dated 19/09/2017, passed by the learned

Sessions Judge-13, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.25/2014 and

judgment and order dated 26/11/2013, passed by the learned Judicial
                                                             289.17revn
                                    (11)

Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad in Criminal Misc. Application

No.76/2013,are hereby quashed and set aside.

(III) The matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Aurangabad. The parties to appear before the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad on 28/09/2026.

(IV) After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate First Class,

Aurangabad shall decide the application, as expeditiously as possible,

after framing the issue of domestic violence.

(V)   It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case of

parties on merits. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any

observations made in this order.


16.         The criminal revision application is partly allowed and

disposed of with the above terms.

17.         In view of disposal of criminal revision application,

pending criminal applications also stand disposed of.




                                      [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk