Bombay High Court
GAJANAN VYANKATRAO BHARAIversusANITA GAJANAN BHARATI AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The criminal revision is dismissed as it lacks merit.
Summary
The husband, a police inspector, filed a criminal revision challenging the Family Court's interim maintenance order dated 20.02.2026, which directed him to pay Rs.12,000 per month to his wife and Rs.8,000 per month to his daughter, totalling Rs.20,000. The revision questioned the reasonableness of the maintenance amount in view of the husband's salary, which the Family Court noted to be above Rs.60,000 per month. The court examined the matrimonial dispute and the separate residence of the wife and daughter, confirming that the interim order was appropriate. It found that the revision raised no valid or strong grounds against the Family Court's decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the criminal revision application without any order as to costs. The decision upheld the interim maintenance as reasonable and lawful.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal revision against the Family Court's interim maintenance order is maintainable
- Whether the amount of Rs.20,000 per month is reasonable given the husband's earnings
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- criminal revision
- interim order
- police inspector
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
943 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2026
GAJANAN VYANKATRAO BHARAI
VERSUS
ANITA GAJANAN BHARATI AND ANOTHER
Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi h/f Mr.V.D.Patnurkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant.
2. The Applicant/husband is challenging the impugned
judgment and order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned Family
Court, Nanded in Petition No.E-161/2024. Vide impugned order, the
learned Family Court was pleased to direct the Applicant herein to pay
the interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- p.m. to the Respondent
No.1/wife and Rs.8,000/- p.m. to Respondent No.2/daughter.
3. At the outset, upon specific query as regards salary and
occupation of the Applicant, the learned Advocate for the Applicant
khs/Sept.2026/123
-2-
states that the Applicant is a Police Inspector.
4. In view of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, the
Respondent wife is staying separately alongwith Respondent
No.2/daughter. Therefore, the proceedings are before the Family Court
at the behest of of Respondent/wife. The learned Family Court, vide it’s
interim order dated 20.02.2026, granted interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- in favour of the Respondents.
5. As regards the salary of the husband, there is a reference in
paragraph no.10 of the impugned order that the Applicant / Husband is
earning more than Rs.60,000/-. Hence the impugned order thereby
directing the Applicant of paying an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the
Respondent/wife and daughter is quite reasonable.
6. In that view of the matter, as no valid and strong grounds
are raised in the instant Criminal Revision Application, there is no merit
in the application. Hence the instant Criminal Revision Application is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
khs/Sept.2026/123
Checking your session…