Bombay High Court

PANKAJ NAVAL BAVISKARversusNUTAN @ RUPALI PANKAJ BAVISKAR

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The revision application is dismissed, and the Family Court's maintenance order remains in force.

Summary

The husband, Pankaj Naval Baviskar, filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order dated 14 February 2020 that required him to pay Rs.3500 per month as maintenance to his wife, Rupali Pankaj Baviskar, from 10 May 2018. He argued that, being an agriculturist, the amount was excessive and sought a notice to the wife. The bench noted that the applicant’s counsel could not satisfactorily confirm whether the payments were being made and found no evidence of perversity, manifest illegality, or disregard of material evidence in the original order. The court held that the maintenance amount was not exorbitant and that the revision jurisdiction did not warrant interference. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, leaving the Family Court’s maintenance order intact.

Issues considered

Whether the revision court should set aside or modify the Family Court's maintenance order of Rs.3500 per month.
Whether the maintenance amount is excessive in view of the husband's agricultural income.
Whether there is any perversity, manifest illegality, or non‑consideration of material evidence justifying interference.

Subjects

maintenance
family law
revision jurisdiction
agriculturist income
maintenance order
criminal revision

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42717


                                                *1*                      6revn53o21


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2021
                               PANKAJ NAVAL BAVISKAR
                                         VERSUS
                          NUTAN @ RUPALI PANKAJ BAVISKAR
                                            ...
                Shri Deshmukh Anand I., Advocate for the Applicant.
                                            ...


                                    CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                    DATE : 15 September 2026
                                        (Through VC)

                P. C. :-

                1.           Heard.


                2.           The applicant/ husband is challenging the order

                dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,

                Jalgaon in Petition No.E-238/2019 (Old Criminal M.A.

                No.360/2018) whereby, he has been directed to pay maintenance

                of Rs.3500/- per month to the respondent/ wife from the date of

                the petition i.e. 10.05.2018.


                3.           The learned advocate for the applicant submits that

                the applicant is an agriculturist and as such, the amount of

                maintenance is too excessive. The matter requires consideration
                                        *2*                          6revn53o21


      and therefore, the notice be issued to the respondent/ wife.


      4.           Upon specific query as to whether, the applicant/

      husband is regularly paying the said amount of Rs.3500/- to the

      respondent/ wife, the learned advocate fails to give any

      satisfactory answer. In that view of the matter, this Court is not

      inclined to entertain the instant revision application. Moreover,

      the maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month is not at all exorbitant.

      So also, on perusal of the reasons recorded by the Court below, I

      do not find any perversity, manifest illegality or non-

      consideration of material evidence warranting interference in

      revisional jurisdiction.


      5.           In view of the above, the Criminal Revision

      Application is dismissed.




kps                               ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…