PRIYANKA W/O GAUTAM PAWAR AND ANOTHERversusGAUTAM VISHNU PAWAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:47002


                                                                              199.24revn
                                                   (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2024


                 1.    Priyanka w/o Gautam Pawar
                 2.    Veer s/o Gautam Pawar                       ….APPLICANTS

                       VERSUS

                 1.    Gautam s/o Vishnu Pawar
                 2.    Vishnu s/o Madhav Pawar
                 3.    Tarabai w/o Vishnu Pawar                    ….RESPONDENTS

                                                  …..
                 Mr G. R. Syed, Advocate for Applicants
                 Mr R. R. Karpe, Advocate a/w Ms Avantika S. Kharade and Mr S. R.
                 Nikat, Advocates for Respondent
                                                 …..

                                           CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  RESERVED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026

                               PRONOUNCED ON : 07th OCTOBER 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.          By way of this criminal revision application, the

                 applicant/wife, along with her minor son, is challenging the impugned

                 judgment and order dated 04/06/2024 in Criminal Appeal No.72/2023,

                 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed to the extent of refusing to

                 grant maintenance to applicant No.1/wife, as well as the impugned

                 judgment and order dated 19/08/2023, passed by the learned Judicial
                                                             199.24revn
                                  (2)

Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ashti, District Beed in Criminal M.A.

No. 294/2021, thereby rejecting her prayers for protection from

domestic violence, residence, monetary relief and compensation. The

applicants are further praying for allowing the Criminal M.A.

No.294/2021, filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Ashti, District Beed.   The applicants are also praying for interim

maintenance to them to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month.


2.          Applicant No.1/wife married respondent No.1/husband on

25/12/2015. After marriage, she went to reside with respondent No.1,

who is working as AirMan in the Air Force and is stated to be earning

more than Rs.80,000/- per month. In view of the marital discord

between them, the applicant/wife started residing separately along with

applicant No.2/her minor son.


3.          Applicant No.1 had filed Criminal M.A. No.294/2021

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for

short ‘the D.V. Act’) against her husband and in-laws, claiming

protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief and compensation.

However, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, District

Beed, rejected the said application vide order dated 19/08/2023. The

said application was rejected on the ground that the applicant had not
                                                                199.24revn
                                    (3)

proven her allegations of domestic violence with strong and reliable

evidence and that there was no justification as to why she was

voluntarily residing separately from her husband voluntarily.


4.           Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of

the learned JMFC, the applicant/wife preferred appeal before the

learned Sessions Court. The said appeal came to be registered as

Appeal No.72/2023. The learned Sessions Court rejected the said

appeal insofar as applicant No.1/wife is concerned, and granted

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2/child. The

learned Sessions Court observed that, though there is a dispute

between the parents, the child has right to maintenance from his father

and the respondent/father cannot shirk his obligation to maintain his

son.    The learned Sessions Court considered the income of

respondent/husband to be around Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month

and vide judgment and order dated 04/06/2024, rejected the appeal

preferred by applicant No.1/wife, however, granted maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.2/son.


5.           Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments of learned

JMFC and the learned Sessions Judge, the applicant/wife has preferred

the instant revision application.
                                                                199.24revn
                                   (4)

6.           Heard learned Advocate Mr Syed for the applicants and

learned Advocate Mr Karpe for the respondents.



7.           Mr Syed, learned Advocate for the applicant/wife submits

that, both the learned subordinate Courts failed to appreciate the

evidence in proper perspective and adopted a very narrow

interpretation of domestic violence under the D.V. Act. He submits

that the subordinate Courts have given undue weightage to the

unnecessary circumstances and to the attempts made by the husband

for reconciliation. He further submits that the learned subordinate

Courts erred in dismissing the wife's medical claims. According to

him, the subordinate Courts also failed to appreciate that, once certain

allegations of domestic violence were brought on record, the

respondent/husband ought to have been directed to pay the

maintenance as per the demand of the applicant/wife. According to

learned Advocate for the applicant, even if the domestic violence is not

proved, the principle of equity suggests that the wife should not be left

without financial support.    He, therefore, submits that the learned

subordinate Courts, by denying maintenance to the applicant/wife,

have virtually left her destitute, and therefore, the orders passed by the

learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are patently
                                                                199.24revn
                                   (5)

illegal. He submits that this Court is required to interfere with the said

orders, quash and set aside the same and direct the respondent/husband

to pay the maintenance, as prayed by the applicant/wife.



8.            Mr. Syed, learned Advocate for the applicants further adds

that,    when    the   dispute   between     the   applicant    and   the

respondent/husband brought to the notice of the Air Force authorities,

the Chief of the Air Staff had also directed the respondent/husband to

pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the applicant/wife.

However, the said order came to be withdrawn when it was pointed out

to the said authority that certain maintenance had already been directed

to be paid to the applicant No.2/child. He further submits that the

amount of Rs.5,000/- is a very meager amount for a school-going

child, and the applicant No.1/wife has no other source of income to

maintain the child.


9.            In support of his submissions, Mr Syed relies upon the

following judgments :-


        (I)   Ashok Sunderjibhai Jadhav Vs. Madhu Ashok Jadhav and

        anr. (Writ Petition No.514/2019, dated 27/02/2024 of Bombay

        High Court);
                                                             199.24revn
                                    (6)

      (II)   Sanjay Vasant Bhagat Vs. Mrs Sampadha Sanjay Bhagat,

      2021 (5) MhLJ (Cri) 259;


      (III) Mayur Vs. Shyamal Mayur Birari (Criminal Writ Petition

      No.334/2025, dated 12/11/2025 of Aurangabad Bench of this

      Court); and


      (IV) Gajanan Shankarrao Mate Vs. Sau. Vandana Gajanan

      Mate (Criminal Revision Application No.99/2022, dated

      12/11/2024 of Nagpur Bench of this Court).


10.          Mr Syed, therefore, submits that the instant criminal

revision may be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders passed

by the learned JMFC as well as the learned Sessions Judge, and the

amount of maintenance may be enhanced.


11.          Per    contra,   Mr.    Karpe,   learned   Advocate    for

respondent/husband, strongly opposes the instant criminal revision

application. He submits that both the orders passed by the learned

Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are absolutely clear

and leave no room for any doubt. He then submits that the domestic

violence is required to be proved before an order of maintenance to the

wife. Unless and until it is established that the applicant/wife is an
                                                                199.24revn
                                   (7)

aggrieved person and a victim of the domestic violence, she is not

entitled to any maintenance or the favorable order from the Court.

He, therefore prays for dismissal of the present revision application.


12.          To buttress his submission, learned Advocate Mr Karpe

relies upon following judgments :-


      (I)    Koushik s/o Anil Gharami Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik

      Gharami & others, 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2398 and


      (II)   Mamta     Gautam    Wankhede      Vs.     Gautam   Sukhdev

      Wankhede,      (Criminal Writ      Petition    No.245/2017,   dated

      02/02/2018 of Nagpur Bench of this Court)



13.          After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective

parties, I have gone through the record and the impugned judgment

and orders passed by both the subordinate Courts. It is required to be

noted that powers of the learned Magistrate to grant monetary relief

under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act includes the power to grant

maintenance. The said relief is to be granted if the applicant/wife is

suffering from certain losses, resulting from the domestic violence.

Unless it is shown that the aggrieved person/wife or her child has

suffered a loss as a consequence of domestic violence, no monetary
                                                              199.24revn
                                  (8)

relief can be granted under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act. The

aggrieved person can always approach before the Court under Section

125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. Said maintenance granted

under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. would be an addition to the

maintenance granted under the provisions of D.V. Act. However, in

order to claim maintenance under the D. V. Act, there should be fresh

circumstances amounting to domestic violence, leading to suffering of

loss by the applicant/wife or her child. If no such circumstances are

pointed out or proved, it would not be appropriate to grant

maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act. In the instant

case, both the subordinate Courts, in their impugned judgment and

orders have observed that there is no domestic violence as pleaded by

the applicant/wife.    This Court, however notes that, while the

applicant/wife must establish domestic violence to claim monetary

relief for her own losses, the minor child stand on a different footing.

The child is not required to prove domestic violence, particularly since

he resides with his mother i.e. the applicant/wife and the

respondent/husband, being his father, owes a natural and statutory duty

to maintain him and provide the necessary financial support for his

upbringing.
                                                               199.24revn
                                  (9)

14.         It is also required to be noted that the arrangement made

by the Appellate Court, directing the respondent/husband to pay

Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of applicant No.2/child,

is required to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the

present case. However, since the respondent/husband was previously

paying Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the applicant/wife and child pursuant to the

directions of the competent Air Force Authority, which order was

subsequently withdrawn, this Court finds that the maintenance amount

of Rs.5,000/- p.m. warrants enhancement to the sum of Rs.15,000/- per

month. The respondent/husband, however, will be at liberty to point

out to the Court, if the question as regards granting of maintenance to

applicant No.2/child arises in future in proceedings under Section 125

of Cr.P.C. At that time, the learned Court deciding the said application,

would consider that the respondent/husband is already paying

Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the child towards his maintenance.



15.         In   view    of   above     discussions   and   observations,

considering the responsibility of respondent No.1/husband towards

applicant No.2/minor child, the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month

granted by the learned Appellate Court appears to be inadequate and as

the respondent/husband is earning more than Rs.70,000/- per month,
                                                              199.24revn
                                  (10)

he is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to applicant

No.2, as was already directed by the Air Force Authority towards the

monetary relief to applicant No.2 for his upbringing and expenses

towards his education, etc. However, the said amount be paid from the

date of this order.



16.          In view of above, this criminal revision application, being

devoid of merits, is dismissed. However, the order of maintenance,

granting monetary relief to applicant No.2 is hereby modified to the

extent of granting maintenance from Rs.5,000/- p.m. to Rs.15,000/-

p. m.


17.          Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.




                                    [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk