ASHUTOSH SURESH ZAREversusHARSHADA ASHUTOSH ZARE

2026:BHC-AUG:41828


                                                                        226.26revn etc
                                                 (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.226 OF 2026
                                        WITH
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3671 OF 2026


                 Ashutosh Suresh Zare                           ….APPLICANT

                       VERSUS

                 Harshada Ashutosh Zare                         ….RESPONDENT

                                         AND
                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.227 OF 2026


                 Ashutosh Suresh Zare                           ….APPLICANT

                       VERSUS

                 Harshada Ashutosh Zare                         ….RESPONDENT
                                                …..
                 Mr Kashyam Ashok Shinde, Advocate (appointed) for Applicant
                 Mr V. P. Sawant, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent
                                                 …..

                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                            DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER 2026
                 P. C. :


                 1.         By way of Criminal Revision Application No.226/2026,

                 the applicant-husband is praying for quashing and setting aside the

                 judgment and order dated 20/06/2026, passed in Petition No.

                 E-100/2023 by the learned Family Court, Dhule. In the said Petition
                                                            226.26revn etc
                                  (2)

No.E-100/2023,     the   respondent-wife      sought   enhancement     of

maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Cr.P.C.), awarded earlier in her favour vide order dated 10/12/2015,

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule in

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3/2014, filed under Section

125 of the Cr.P.C., wherein maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each

was granted to the wife and the elder son, Ninad.


2.          Further, by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 227

of 2026, the applicant-husband is challenging the judgment and order

dated 20/06/2026, passed by the learned Family Court, Dhule, in

Petition No.E-105/2023, whereby the application preferred by the

present applicant/husband under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., seeking

cancellation/modification of the maintenance order in favour of

respondent/wife    and   son,   passed   in    Criminal    Miscellaneous

Application No.3/2014, came to be dismissed.


3.          The marriage between the applicant/husband and the

respondent/wife was solemnized on 29/06/2012.           Out of the said

wedlock, the couple is having two children. It was alleged that, after

marriage,    applicant/husband     was        given    ill-treatment   to

respondent/wife.   Therefore, respondent/wife left the matrimonial
                                                         226.26revn etc
                                  (3)

house.   Initially, prior to the birth of the second minor child, the

respondent/wife had preferred an application bearing Criminal

Miscellaneous Application No.3/2014, before the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Dhule, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.,

claiming maintenance for herself and her elder son, Ninad.        The

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide order dated 10/12/2015,

allowed her application, thereby granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/-

p.m. each to both respondent/wife and the elder son Ninad.


4.          Thereafter, a compromise was taken place between the

parties, and the respondent/wife returned to cohabit with the

applicant/husband.   Thereafter, the second child came to be born.

However, again a dispute arose between the parties. Therefore, the

respondent/wife left the matrimonial house and started residing

separately along with her second child Rudrang, whereas the elder son

is residing with the applicant/husband.


5.          After the order dated 10/12/2015, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Miscellaneous Application

No.3/2014, the respondent/wife preferred Petition No.E-100/2023

under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court,

Dhule, claiming enhancement of maintenance earlier granted by
                                                         226.26revn etc
                                   (4)

learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Family Court, vide order

dated 20/06/2026 allowed the application, thereby directing the

applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the

respondent/wife. Thus, the maintenance of the respondent/wife came

to be enhanced from Rs.3,000/- p.m. to Rs.7,000/-. Feeling aggrieved

by the said enhancement, the applicant/husband has approached this

Court by filing the Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 2026.


6.          In Criminal Revision Application No. 227 of 2026, the

applicant/husband is challenging the order dated 20/06/2026, passed in

Petition No.E-105/2023, whereby the learned Family Court rejected

application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by him, seeking

cancellation and modification of maintenance passed in favour of

respondent/wife and minor child.


7.          Heard learned Advocate Mr Shinde for applicant/husband

and learned Advocate Mr Sawant for respondent/wife at length. Both

the Advocates are appointed by this Court through the High Court

Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad to represent on behalf of

applicant and respondent, respectively.


8.          Learned Advocate for applicant submits that, the learned

Family Court committed a grave error in exorbitantly enhancing the
                                                           226.26revn etc
                                  (5)

maintenance, without properly considering financial condition of

applicant. He then submits that the applicant/husband was working as

an Assistant Professor initially. However, his job could not be

continued with the said institution, and thereafter, he started his own

business under the name and style of ‘Ninad Solutions Limited’. The

earlier proceedings was filed in the year 2014 before the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule, wherein maintenance was

granted @ Rs.3000/- each to the respondent/wife and son.


9.          Learned Advocate for applicant further submits that, after

a    temporary   compromise,     disputes   arose    again,   and    the

respondent/wife left the matrimonial house once again with the second

child Rudrang. He then submits that, after leaving his job, the income

of the applicant/husband from the business, is not sufficient to meet

the maintenance charges towards respondent/wife and son. He points

out from the Income Tax Returns filed by the applicant/husband before

the learned lower Court that, income of the applicant is between

Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. He then submits that he has

to maintain his elderly parents and his elder son Ninad, who suffers

from various health issues including visual impairment.        He then

submits that, as the financial condition of the applicant/husband is not

so good, this aspect is required to be taken into consideration by this
                                                         226.26revn etc
                                 (6)

Court.   He, therefore, prays for allowing these criminal revision

applications by reducing the maintenance amount awarded by the

learned Family Court.


10.         Per contra, Mr Sawant, Advocate for the respondent/wife

strongly opposes the present criminal revision applications. He states

maintenance amount awarded in the year 2015 by learned Judicial

Magistrate is wholly inadequate and the amount of maintenance

granted by the learned Family Court is correct and proper and requires

no interference by this Court. He submits that the respondent/wife is

staying with her minor child Rudrang, and consequently, an amount of

Rs.7,000/- p.m. is sufficient for maintaining themselves.         He,

therefore, prays for dismissal of these revision application by

maintaining the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court.


11.         After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and

going through the record, I found that the family Court has rightly

analyzed the oral and documentary evidence presented by both the

parties. Though applicant/husband heavily relies upon his financial

condition showing his responsibilities to maintain his parents and

medical expenses of son Ninad, and contending that enhanced

maintenance amount is excessive and exorbitant, it is found that the
                                                              226.26revn etc
                                      (7)

amount of maintenance of Rs.7,000/- granted by the Family Court is

reasonable. The maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month is quite adequate

and proper for the respondent-wife and her child. The said order

cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. The applicant/husband is

an engineer and running a business. The amount of Rs.7,000/- cannot

be said to be overly burdensome for him to maintain the

respondent/wife     and    the    second      child.   Admittedly,      the

applicant/husband has responsibilities toward his parents and elder

son, but that does not relieve him of his duty to maintain his wife and

second child.     Therefore, both these revision applications can be

disposed of by upholding the order passed by the learned Family

Court.   This Court is not inclined to entertain these revision

applications, as the findings of the learned Family Court appear legally

correct and proper, requiring no interference. The scope of jurisdiction

under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and is to be

exercised sparingly only to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Hence,

both the Criminal Revision Applications stand dismissed.


12.           In view of dismissal of revision applications, Criminal

Application     No.3671/2026     in     Criminal   Revision   Application

No.226/2026 does not survive and the same is also disposed of.
                                                        226.26revn etc
                                 (8)

13.         Since    both   learned Advocates   for   applicant   and

respondent are appointed through the High Court Legal Services Sub-

Committee, Aurangabad, their fees shall be calculated and paid to

them as per rules.




                                   [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk