DAYANAND SHIVRUDRA SWAMIversusSHILPA DAYANAND ALIAS SANTOSH SWAMI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38689


                                                 *1*                       927rev20o26


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2026
                             DAYANAND SHIVRUDRA SWAMI
                                           VERSUS
                    SHILPA DAYANAND ALIAS SANTOSH SWAMI AND
                                           OTHERS
                                              ...
                Shri Salunke Jay Subhash, Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri Bolkar Yogesh B., advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
                                              ...


                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 25 August 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.          By this revision, the applicant/ husband seeks an

                exception to the judgment and order dated 13.10.2025 passed by

                the learned Judge, Family Court, Nanded, in Petition No.E-

                113/2022 thereby, the said petition is partly allowed and the

                applicant is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per

                month to the respondent/ wife from the date of filing petition i.e.

                04.08.2022 and Rs.8000/- per month to each child. Thus, total

                Rs.28000/- per month have been directed to be paid towards

                maintenance.


                2.          According to the respondents, there is family dispute
                                 *2*                       927rev20o26


between the parties and the respondents/ claimants, who are wife

and minor children of the applicant herein, have filed the

application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and

Rs.10,000/- per month to each child. The respondents claimed

that they are totally dependent on the applicant’s income and

they do not have separate source of income for day to day

maintenance. The applicant is serving as Senior Regional

Manager in ICICI Bank at Pune and earning salary of more than

Rs.1.50 lac per month. The children are admitted in reputed

school and towards educational expenses, huge amount is

required. Therefore, they filed the said petition for maintenance.


3.          The applicant/ husband has filed the reply before the

Family Court pointing out that though he is working as Senior

Regional Manager in ICICI Bank, he is required to maintain his

old aged parents and therefore, requires substantial amount

towards medical expenses. The learned Family Court vide the

impugned order partly allowed the petition filed by the

respondents/ claimants and thereby, granted maintenance as

stated herein above. Hence, the applicant is before this Court in
                                   *3*                      927rev20o26


this revision.


4.               Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the

learned Family Court has committed an error by not appreciating

evidence brought before it by the applicant. The amount of

maintenance is highly exorbitant. The respondents have failed to

establish before the Family Court that their day to day expenses

require so much amount and without appreciating evidence in

proper perspective, the learned Family Court has granted

maintenance. Learned advocate for the applicant specifically

argued that the impugned order came to be passed without

hearing him and on the date of hearing, he was absent and

therefore, the applicant may be given an opportunity of hearing.

On these grounds, learned advocate prayed for quashing the

impugned order.


5.           Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents

submits that the applicant is working as Senior Regional

Manager in ICICI Bank and earning more than Rs.1.50 lac per

month. Apart from salary income, he is also earning Rs.10,000/-

per month from other sources including agriculture income. The

amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Family Court
                                   *4*                     927rev20o26


is quite reasonable and requires to be maintained. The

respondents have not approached to the Court by filing the

application for enhancement. The amount has been granted after

considering the material places before the Family Court.

Therefore, according to learned advocate, the impugned order is

correct and proper and requires no interference.


6.              After hearing the learned advocates for the parties

and going through the impugned order, it is evident that the

applicant/ husband is working with the ICICI Bank and on the

post of Senior Regional Manager, which fact is not disputed. Net

salary income of the applicant is also not disputed. The amount

awarded towards maintenance of the wife and two minor

children, having regard to the income of the applicant and the

requirements of the dependants, cannot be said to be so excessive

or unreasonable as to warrant interference in revisional

jurisdiction.


7.              The impugned order also discloses that the

applicant/ husband was given an opportunity of hearing to

adduce evidence on several occasions, however, the applicant

remained absent. Therefore, the Family Court closed evidence of
                                       *5*                       927rev20o26


      the applicant. Thus, though the applicant was granted time and

      sufficient opportunity, however, he has chosen not to appear

      before the Family Court. Thus, the contention of the applicant

      that the impugned order was passed without affording him an

      opportunity of hearing is not borne out from the record. Having

      failed to avail the opportunities granted by the Family Court, the

      applicant cannot now contend that the impugned order is vitiated

      for want of hearing. No breach of principles of natural justice is,

      therefore, made out.


      8.          On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the

      learned Family Court has considered the material available on

      record and has assigned reasons for awarding maintenance. No

      perversity, illegality or material irregularity is demonstrated

      warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The applicant

      has also failed to show any sufficient ground for setting aside the

      impugned order. Hence, no interference is called for. The

      Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.




kps                            ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )