TANAJI TATYARAM GADEversusGIRIJA TANAJI GADE AND ANR

       Digitally
       signed by
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND                                                              3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
       2026.09.03
       18:40:04
       +0530
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2023

                    Tanaji Tatyaram Gade                             … Applicant
                           Versus
                    Girija Tanaji Gade and anr.               … Respondents
                                                     ***
                    Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for the Applicant.
                    Mr. Anand G. Awasarmol a/w Mr. Pawan S. Dabhade for Respondent
                    No.1.
                    Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent – State.
                                                     ***
                                                        CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                              DATE    : 03 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                    2.       The Applicant/Husband is challenging the order dated
                    19.11.2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Thane, rejecting the
                    Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3 of 2019. By the said
                    Application, the Applicant – husband had prayed for alternation of
                    maintenance amount under the provisions of Section 127 of the Code
                    of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). Indian Penal Code,
                    1860 is referred to as ‘IPC’ for short.

                    3.       The case of the Applicant is that in Petition No. ___ filed after
                    about 22 to 25 years from the date of marriage, under Section 125 of
                    Cr.P.C., the parties entered into a compromise dated 09.09.2017, by
                    which the Applicant agreed to pay the maintenance of Rs.14,000/-
                    per month from March, 2017. This was a compromise in Lok Adalat.


                    Vina Khadpe                               1
                                                  3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc




4.     According to the Applicant, the Respondent No. 1/ wife has
two flats in her name and she is staying with his one son and two
daughters. It is also contended that the Respondent – wife is running
a a bhishi and the children are earning. It is submitted that the
Applicant retired on 31.05.2018 from the service of Railways where
he was working as Senior Technician and he was was paying the
maintenance amount and has also borne the medical expenses for his
daughter. According to the Applicant, after retirement, he is getting
pension of about Rs.20,000/- per month, and therefore, the
maintenance amount needs to be reduced suitably. It is informed on
instructions that the Applicant is ready to pay maintenance of Rs.
10,000/- per month. It is further contended that 498A IPC and
domestic violence proceedings were initiated in 2018 with a view of
extracting more money.

5.     The Respondent No.1/wife filed an Affidavit of Evidence in
Family Court directly, without filing any Reply, raising grievance
about arrears of maintenance under compromise.

6.     The learned Judge of the Family Court has dismissed the
application, stating that the Applicant must have received retirement
benefits and that the bank statements were not produced showing
actual pension. The learned Judge has held that the salary of the
Railway Employees is much higher and that income proof was not
produced.

7.     Learned Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that in the
Application before the Family Court, the Applicant had produced the


Vina Khadpe                         2
                                                    3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc




pension documents along with account statements and copies of
proceedings filed by the Respondent in 2018 under 498-A of IPC. It is
also pointed out that the Applicant has produced tax receipts of two
flats standing in the name of Respondent – wife and the case status of
the domestic violence proceedings. In that view of the matter, it is
clear that the findings of the learned Judge of the Family Court about
non-production of the income proof as well as non-filing of the
account statement is perverse and factually incorrect.

8.     The learned Trial Judge has held that according to common
knowledge, the ‘salary’ of Central Government Employee/ Railway
Employee is much higher. It is not disputed that the Applicant is
retired with effect from 31.05.2018. The Pension Payment Order
dated 21.5.2018 is produced on record, indicating the amount of
pension as Rs.21,800/- with a commuted portion of Rs.8,720/- to be
deducted from pension from 01.06.2018 to 31.05.2023. Perusal of
the Bank statement produced on record indicates that the Petitioner
is receiving a consistent credit of pension amount of Rs. 19,000/- and
odd. The Applicant has also produced on record two tax receipt of
Flat Nos.111 and 114 issued by Thane Municipal Corporation,
indicating that two flats are in the name of Respondent No.1 wife at
Majiwada Thane.

9.     The fact that two flats are in the name of Respondent No. 1
wife is not disputed. It is not disputed that these flats are in
possession / control of the Respondent No.1 wife. It is not difficult to
understand that after retirement, the earning capacity of a person
reduces.

Vina Khadpe                           3
                                                     3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc




10.    In view of all this material available before the Court, it cannot
be said that the Applicant has not made out any case for reduction in
the maintenance amount. Therefore, proportionate reduction in the
maintenance liability is necessary, especially considering that
Respondent No. 1 wife has two flats and the children of the couple
are grown up and stated to be working.

11.    In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons
indicated above, the impugned order, being perverse, requires
interference. Original maintenance amount under compromise was
Rs.14,000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- per month is volunteered.

12.    Accordingly, Revision Application is partly allowed. Impugned
order is set aside. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3 of 2019 is
partly allowed, thereby directing the Applicant to pay to Respondent
No.1. wife Rs.10,000/- per month from 21.06.2019 (date of
application). It is clarified that the Applicant’s liability to pay as per
the compromise in Lok Adalat @ Rs.14,000/- per month, shall
continue till 20.06.2019.

13.    The maintenance amount shall be re-worked from 21.06.2019
and total arrears as of today, if any, shall be paid by the Applicant to
Respondent No.1 wife within a period of four weeks from today.

14.    The Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR
verifiable copy of this order.

                                               (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)


Vina Khadpe                            4