Bombay High Court
BHATU NAWAL PATILversusRAJUBAI BHATU PATIL
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The revision application is dismissed and the Family Court's order enhancing maintenance to ₹6,000 stands.
Summary
The husband, aged over 65 and retired as an Assistant Branch Post Master, filed a criminal revision against a Family Court order that enhanced his wife's maintenance from ₹1,000 to ₹6,000 under Section 127 of the CrPC. The parties have been living separately since 1982, and the wife, aged over 60, is wholly dependent on the maintenance. The husband argued that he has no earning capacity or pension and that the enhancement is excessive and illegal. The wife contended that, given her advanced age and lack of income, the increased amount is reasonable and necessary for her livelihood. The High Court examined the facts, noted the wife's dependence and the husband's ownership of agricultural property, and concluded that the Family Court's enhancement was adequate, refusing to interfere and dismissing the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court's enhancement of maintenance to ₹6,000 under Section 127 CrPC is justified despite the husband's lack of earnings.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order on grounds of excessiveness.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 127
Subjects
- maintenance
- Family Court
- revision
- Section 127 CrPC
- aged spouses
- superannuation
- dependence
- enhancement
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42002
927.REVN.168.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2024
Bhatu Nawal Patil ...Applicant
Versus
Rajubai Bhatu Patil ...Respondent
***
Mr. Sant Tapan Kishor, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Deshpande Shantanu A., Advocate for the Respondent.
***
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The Applicant is challenging the order dated 23 rd May
2023, passed by the learned Family Court, Dhule, in Petition E No.145
of 2021 (Old Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.947 of 2017).
Vide the said order, the learned Family Court was pleased to enhance
the amount of maintenance from ₹ 1,000/- to ₹ 6,000/-. Feeling
aggrieved by the said enhancement order, the Applicant–husband has
approached this Court.
2. Heard Mr. Sant, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr.
Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 4
927.REVN.168.2024.doc
3. Mr. Sant, learned counsel for the Applicant, submits that as
on date, the Applicant is aged more than 65 years, whereas the
Respondent–wife is aged more than 60 years. They have been
separated since 1982. Since then, the Applicant has been paying the
maintenance. Earlier, it was granted @ ₹ 150/-, which was
subsequently enhanced to ₹ 1,000/- in the year 2011. Thereafter, the
Respondent again approached the learned Family Court under Section
127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the
maintenance amount.
4. The learned Family Court, while considering the cost of
living and other expenses required for maintenance, enhanced the
amount of maintenance from ₹ 1,000/- to ₹ 6,000/-.
5. Mr. Sant, learned counsel for the Applicant, submits that
the earlier maintenance order was granted by considering the salary
certificate when the Applicant was in service. He submits that the
Applicant was working as an Assistant Branch Post Master; however,
he has now superannuated and he is not having any pensionary
benefits. He further submits that as the Applicant is not receiving any
earnings, the enhancement granted by the learned Family Court is
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 4
927.REVN.168.2024.doc
highly unjustified and excessive. He therefore submits that as there is
no earning capacity of the Applicant, the impugned order is grossly
illegal.
6. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent, submits that the Respondent–wife has been staying
separately since the year 1982 and she is totally dependent upon the
maintenance being granted to her by the learned Family Court. He
further submits that due to her old age, it is very difficult for her to
meet her expenses of livelihood. He further submits that in order to
secure the ends of justice, the impugned order passed by the learned
Family Court deserves to be maintained. He again submits that the
enhancement is highly reasonable and would be sufficient for the
Respondent–wife to maintain herself with that enhancement amount.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going
through the order passed by the learned Family Court, it is found that
the parties are living separately since the year 1982. The Applicant is
also shown to be possessing certain agricultural property. Since both
the parties are aged citizens, particularly the Respondent–wife, who is
totally dependent upon the maintenance granted by the learned Family
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 4
927.REVN.168.2024.doc
Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Family Court. I find that enhancement to ₹ 6,000/- is highly
adequate and proper. Moreover, much leniency has been shown
towards the Applicant, as the learned Family Court, while enhancing
the said amount, has not directed the Applicant to pay the same from
the date of the application.
8. In that view of the matter, the Application deserves to be
rejected. Hence, the Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
Shrikant Malani Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…