Bombay High Court

SURYAKANT S/O. MADHAVRAO ATKOREversusUSHA W/O. SURYAKANT ATKORE

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The revision application fails; the Family Court's maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC is upheld.

Summary

The husband, Suryakant Atkore, filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order dated 01.08.2019 that directed him to pay Rs.4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court had observed that the husband, a truck driver earning Rs.20,000 per month, had been separated from his wife for 16 years and was unable to maintain herself. The High Court noted that the marriage occurred 27 years before the maintenance petition and found no error, illegality, or perversity in the Family Court's decision. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the maintenance order was upheld. The case underscores the discretion of family courts in granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when the wife is unable to support herself.

Issues considered

Whether the Family Court's order directing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is liable to be set aside on revision
Whether there was any error, illegality or perversity in the Family Court's determination of maintenance

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 125

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
family court
revision
marital separation
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42959


                                                *1*                      906revn306o19


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2019
                        SURYAKANT S/O. MADHAVRAO ATKORE
                                            VERSUS
                             USHA W/O. SURYAKANT ATKORE
                                              ...
                Advocate Tanuja D. Dhage i/by Ms. Rasal Asha Sanjay,
                Advocate for the Applicant.
                                              ...

                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 22 September 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.           The applicant/ husband is challenging the impugned

                order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family

                Court, Nanded, in Petition No.E-133/2017 whereby, the

                applicant/ husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4000/-

                per month to the respondent/ wife from the date of the petition

                i.e. 16.11.2017.


                2.           This matter was listed for the first time before this

                Court on 18.08.2026 though was filed in the year 2019. Since

                nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicant, therefore, this

                matter was kept on 25.08.2026. On 25.08.2026, the learned

                advocate for the applicant sought time for obtaining instructions
                                   *2*                       906revn306o19


from the applicant. Again this matter was listed on 08.09.2026

and the learned advocate sought time on the ground that she

could not establish contact with the applicant. Even today, the

learned advocate for the applicant states that she could not

establish contact with the applicant.


3.              With the assistance of the learned advocate for the

applicant, the matter was heard. It is found that the marriage

between the couple took place before 27 years of the filing of the

petition for maintenance. The learned Family Court in the

petition filed by the respondent/ wife directed the applicant to

pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month under Section 125 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court

observed that the applicant is working as truck driver and earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. The parties have got separated since last

16 years. Since the respondent/ wife is staying separately and

unable to maintain herself, the amount of Rs.4000/- was granted

by way of maintenance. After perusing the impugned order, I

find that the said order is correct and proper and requires no

interference.


4.              In view of the above discussion, I find that no error,
                                      *3*                    906revn306o19


      much less any manifest illegality or perversity, is committed by

      the Family Court warranting interference in exercise of

      revisional jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision Application,

      therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.




kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…