SUGANDH S/O. GANGADHAR GAVHANEversusSONALI S/O. SUGANDH GAVHANE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40192


                                               1/4                 935-REVN-385-2019


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     935 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 385 OF 2019

                               Sugandh S-o. Gangadhar Gavhane
                                            VERSUS
                            Sonali S-o. Sugandh Gavhane And Others
                                              …..
                Ms. Shruti Waghmare h/f., Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B., Advocate
                for Applicant.

                                               …..

                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
                                          DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026

                PER COURT :

                1.        The applicant/husband is challenging the impugned order

                dated 29 March 2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Nanded,

                thereby directing the applicant/husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per

                month to respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to his

                two minor children towards their monthly maintenance. The said

                amount was directed to be paid from the date of application, i.e.,

                26 July 2018. The applicant has challenged the same in this

                Revision Application on the ground that the applicant was not

                heard and that the amount directed to be paid by the applicant is

                excessive.


                2.        Ms. Waghmare, learned counsel for applicant/husband,

                Kiran Kawre
                                  2/4                   935-REVN-385-2019


states that the learned Family Court did not consider the fact that

the applicant is labourer and does not have a regular salary and,

therefore, is unable to bear the monthly maintenance as directed

by the learned Family Court. She further submits that the order is

patently illegal, which is passed behind the back of the applicant,

and hence, she strongly submits that the impugned order is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.


3.        With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant,

I have gone through the order passed by the learned Family Court.


4.        The respondent No.1 is the wife of applicant herein. The

marriage between them took place on 3 June 2011. Out of the said

wedlock, they have two children, i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3,

who are minors. The respondent/wife has filed an application

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the

learned Family Court, Nanaded, which came to be registered as

Petition No.E-100 of 2018. The respondents have stated in their

application that, after the marriage, the applicant had physically

and mentally harassed the respondent. The respondents belong to

a very poor family and do not have any separate source of income.

The respondents also alleged in their application that the applicant

Kiran Kawre
                                 3/4                    935-REVN-385-2019


and his relatives had harassed the respondent/wife on account of

demand for dowry from her parents. On the basis of said

averments, the respondents have prayed for maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondents, in their application at

paragraph No.7, have stated that the applicant/husband is

employed as a driver and is also working as a broker. Out of the

said work, his earnings are more than Rs.25,000/- per month.


5.        The learned Family Court at Nanded, while considering the

aforesaid application, was pleased to consider that the applicant

herein is working as a driver and is earing around Rs.25,000/- per

month and, accordingly, passed the impugned order, thereby

directing the applicant/husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to

petitioner/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to his two minor

children towards monthly maintenance.


6.        During the course of hearing of instant Revision Application,

no strong and valid grounds have been pointed out so as to disturb

the finding of the learned Family Court.


7.        As there is no strong ground, this Court is of the opinion

that the jurisdiction of this Court in the instant Revision



Kiran Kawre
                                 4/4                    935-REVN-385-2019


Application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is very limited. In that

view of the matter, as no illegality has been pointed out and as the

amount of maintenance is very meager, this Court is not inclined to

entertain the Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of

the Cr.P.C.


8.        The instant Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.




                                   (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)




Kiran Kawre