Deepak Tukaram MohiteversusRekha Deepak Mohite

                                                      901-REVN-78-26.docx


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          (901) CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2026
                                 WITH
                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 333 OF 2026
                                  IN
             CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2026

Rekha Deepak Mohite                                            ...Applicant
           VERSUS
Deepak Tukaram Mohite                                        ...Respondent

                                WITH
          (50)CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 361 OF 2025

Deepak Tukaram Mohite                                          ...Applicant
           VERSUS
Rekha Deepak Mohite                                          ...Respondent

                           ——————
Adv. Vikrant Shinde a/w Bhavika Shinde for the applicant.
Adv. Chirag Sonecha for the applicant in Revn No. 361/2025 and
respondent no.1 Revn No. 78/2026.
Ms. S.H. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent – State in Revn No.
78/2026
Mr. Avinash Naik, APP for the respondent – State in Revn No.
361/2025.
Adv. Vikrant Shinde a/w Adv. Bhavika Shinde for the respondent.
                           ——————

                                 Coram :      RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

                                 Date     :   SEPTEMBER 4, 2026.

P. C. :

1.        By the impugned judgment and order dated 30 August 2025




Rushi                            1 of 7
                                                     901-REVN-78-26.docx


passed by Family Court, Satara in Exhibit 73 order below in P.E. No. 21

of 2023, the learned Judge by allowing the wife's petition, directed the

husband to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month towards

maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition, i.e. 16 June

2023. Both the parties, i.e. the wife and the husband have challenged

the impugned order dated 30 August 2025, by filing the revision

application. In the husband's revision application, this Court directed

the husband to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount in order to

entertain the petition. I have been informed that 50% of the said

amount has been deposited in this Court.

2.      I have heard counsels for both the sides and I have gone

through the documents on record. The learned Family Court have

considered the fact that production of salary slips of the respondent-

husband, which shows that his salary for the month of June 2025 was

totally Rs.66,225/-, where after deduction take-away home salary is

Rs.45,076/-. Based on the said salary certificate, the Court directed

the respondent-husband to pay Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of

the application, considering the ratio laid down by Hon’be Supreme

Court in the judgment of Rajnesh V/s. Neha & Anr reported in (2021)

2 SCC 324.

3.      I have been shown the judgment of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury


Rushi                             2 of 7
                                                             901-REVN-78-26.docx


versus Rita Dey Chowdhury reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200. In the

said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come to a view that

25% of the husband net salary would be just and proper to be

awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. Paragraph No. 15 of

the said judgment read as under.

        “15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
        came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to
        the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier
        order dated 2-2-20152 awarding a maintenance of
        Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her
        minor son was under challenge before this Court. As
        pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the
        appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs
        63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of
        GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February
        2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be
        Rs 95,527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj
        Kumari, in this case, it was held that 25% of the
        husband's net salary would be just and proper to be
        awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The
        amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife
        must be befitting the status of the parties and the
        capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance.
        Maintenance is always dependent on the factual
        situation of the case and the court would be justified
        in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on
        various factors. Since in February 2016, the net
        salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the
        High Court was justified in enhancing the
        maintenance amount. However, since the appellant
        has also got married second time and has a child
        from the second marriage, in the interest of justice,
        we think it proper to reduce the amount of
        maintenance of Rs 23,000 to Rs 20,000 per month
        as maintenance to the respondent wife and son”.




Rushi                                 3 of 7
                                                       901-REVN-78-26.docx


4.       Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (Supra), 25% of the amount of Rs.45,076/-

would be roughly around Rs.11,250/-.The Family Court has granted

Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, the amount should be enhanced

from Rs.6,000 to Rs.11,250/- per month to be payable by the husband

from the date of the filing of the petition, i.e. 16 June 2023.

5.      As far as submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

husband is concerned that as per the provision of section 125(4) of the

Cr.P.C., if the wife refuses to live with her husband, she would not be

entitled to receive maintenance or interim maintenance. I have gone

through the reply filed by the husband to the application filed by the

wife seeking interim maintenance. In the said reply, in paragraph no.

2, the husband has denied that there was any kind of marriage

ceremony between the applicant and the respondent. Therefore, she

has to first prove that there was a marriage in order to claim

maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the second breath, he says

that he is accepting her as his wife, provided she comes and stays with

him and not only Rs.6,000/- but he will even pay Rs. 10,000/- per

month to her.

6.      I was also shown the evidence which was led before the Family

Court, and mainly, answers given to question nos. 26, 27, and 28.


Rushi                              4 of 7
                                                      901-REVN-78-26.docx


7.      Considering the evidence led before the Family Court, nowhere I

could find that any objection as mentioned in section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.

were raised. In fact, the argument on behalf of the husband is that

there was no marriage. The wife has stated that she cannot stay with

the husband because he has suppressed many facts. He has suppressed

that the reasons why his first wife had died, he has his one of his two

daughters from the first marriage is a handicap and also the fact that

the mother of the husband used to abuse the applicant wife, the

nephew of the husband used to molest her and even the husband has

physically beaten her and she had no other option but to leave the

house. In such a situation, she was not ready to go back to the

residence of the husband.

8.      Once this material is on record, then in my view, sub-section (4)

of section 125 is not attracted, as the said sub-section states that

without any sufficient reason, the wife refuses to live with her

husband.

9.      At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the husband

submits that his client had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application

before the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 125(5)

of the Cr.P.C. However, the said application came to be rejected on 27

August 2026 on the ground that the same was not maintainable in


Rushi                              5 of 7
                                                      901-REVN-78-26.docx


view of the pendency of the present proceedings. He submits that he

intends to challenge the said order.

10.     Hence, in my view, both the revision application can be disposed

of with following order:

           i) The maintenance granted by order dated 30 August 2025

           by Family Court, Satara of Rs.6,000/- is enhanced to Rs.

           11,250/-, which will be payable from 16 June 2023.

           ii) The amount which has already been deposited by the

           husband to be adjusted while calculating the arrears payable

           by the husband.

           iii) The amount deposited in this Court by the husband is

           permitted to be withdrawn by the wife along with accrued

           interest, if any.

11.     The balance amount of arrears to be deposited by the husband

within a period of six weeks from today. Once the said amount of

arrears is deposited, the wife is permitted to withdraw the same.

12.     Thereafter, the husband will pay an amount of Rs.11,250/- to

the wife in her bank account on every 5th day of the month.

13.     Criminal Revision Application No. 361 of 2025 and Criminal

Revision Application No. 78 of 2026 are accordingly disposed of.




Rushi                              6 of 7
                    901-REVN-78-26.docx


                 (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




Rushi   7 of 7