Bombay High Court
DNYANESHWAR BHANUDAS GAIKWADversusRUKHMABAI DNYANESHWAR GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the maintenance order was not excessive and there was no manifest illegality, so the revision application was dismissed.
Summary
The husband appealed a maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month imposed by the JMFC, Jamner, and a subsequent dismissal of his criminal appeal by the Sessions Judge. He contended that the amount was excessive and that he lacked sufficient earning capacity to pay it. The Court examined whether the maintenance was unreasonable or whether there was any perversity or manifest illegality in the lower courts' decisions. Finding that the amount was not exorbitant and that the applicant could not provide satisfactory evidence of non‑payment, the Court saw no ground for interference. Consequently, the criminal revision application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month is excessive or unreasonable.
- Whether there is any manifest illegality, perversity, or failure to consider material evidence warranting interference in the revision jurisdiction.
Subjects
- maintenance
- criminal revision
- family law
- Section 125
- adequacy of maintenance
- revision jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42720
*1* 8revn118o21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2021
DNYANESHWAR BHANUDAS GAIKWAD
VERSUS
RUKHMABAI DNYANESHWAR GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
...
Shri Rakhunde Pravin B., Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri M.A. Aher, APP for the Respondents/ State.
...
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 15 September 2026
(Through VC)
P. C. :-
1. Heard.
2. The applicant/ husband is challenging the order
dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned JMFC, Jamner, in
Criminal Misc. Application No.222/2017 whereby, he has been
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the
respondent/ wife from the date of the application. Criminal
Appeal No.69/2019 filed by the applicant against the order dated
30.08.2018 is also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon, vide the judgment and order dated 22.07.2021. Hence,
the applicant/ husband is before this Court.
*2* 8revn118o21
3. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that
the amount of maintenance is too excessive. The applicant does
not have sound earning capacity so that he can pay such huge
maintenance. The matter requires consideration and therefore,
the notice be issued to the respondent/ wife.
4. Upon specific query as to whether, the applicant/
husband is regularly paying the said amount of maintenance to
the respondent/ wife, the learned advocate fails to give any
satisfactory answer. In that view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the instant revision application. Moreover,
the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month is not at all exorbitant.
So also, on perusal of the reasons recorded by the Courts below, I
do not find any perversity, manifest illegality or non-
consideration of material evidence warranting interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
5. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision
Application is dismissed.
kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
Checking your session…