Bombay High Court
RAMCHANDRA S/O. SHANKARRAO JADHAVversusINDUMATI W/O. RAMCHANDRA JADHAV AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court disposed of the criminal revision application without any order, holding that no further relief is warranted as the children are now adults and no party has sought further directions.
Summary
The applicant, Ramchandra Jadhav, appealed against orders of the Latur Family Court that directed his imprisonment until he paid a maintenance arrear of Rs 1,04,100. The Family Court had issued a recovery warrant and, on 21 February 2018, ordered that he be released only upon full payment, otherwise remain in jail. The applicant deposited Rs 50,000 but the balance remained unpaid; he filed a criminal revision in 2018, which the High Court suspended pending a bond and the deposit. During the pendency, the children for whom maintenance was ordered attained majority and the daughter married, rendering the original application for minors inaccurate. The High Court observed that no further instructions were forthcoming and, given the changed circumstances, declined to pass any further order, disposing of the revision application. The court left the parties free to approach again if a grievance persisted.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court can order imprisonment for non‑payment of maintenance under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Whether the criminal revision filed against the Family Court’s orders is maintainable
- Effect of the children attaining majority and the daughter’s marriage on the maintenance proceedings
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 127
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- criminal revision
- imprisonment for non-payment
- Section 127 CrPC
- minor
- majority
- execution warrant
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41209
84.18revn
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2018
Ramchandra s/o Shankarrao Jadhav ….APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Indumati w/ Ramchandra Jadhav
2. Akshay s/o Ramchandra Jadhav
3. Pratiksha d/o Ramchandra Jadhav ….RESPONDENTS
…..
Mr Chaitanya C. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant
Mr Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for Respondents
…..
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 03 SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :
1. The applicant/husband is challenging the orders dated
16/12/2017 and 21/02/2018, passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Latur in Petition E.R. No.44/2017. Vide order dated
16/12/2017, the learned Family Court observed that as the warrant for
recovery of amount of Rs.1,04,100/- was returned un-executed, for
recovery of due amount, there is no alternative except to sentence the
applicant for simple imprisonment for one month or till the period, he
does not make payment of entire due amount. Vide order dated
21/02/2018, the learned Judge of the Family Court observed that, if the
84.18revn
(2)
the applicant deposits entire due amount stated in conviction warrant
i.e. Rs.1,04,100/-, he shall be released, otherwise, he be sent to jail
with a conviction warrant. On the same date, the applicant came to be
sent to jail under the warrant. Therefore, he has approached this Court
challenging the aforesaid orders in the instant revision application.
2. This Court, vide order dated 19th March 2018, suspended
the execution of the impugned orders dated 16/12/2017 and
21/02/2018, on furnishing a P.R. bond of ₹15,000 with one surety, on
the condition that within two weeks after applicant’s release, he shall
deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the Family Court. Thereafter, this
matter was listed on 20/06/2018, wherein the Advocate for the
applicant sought time to produce the receipt in respect of the amount
deposited by the applicant before the Family Court. On 17/07/2018,
the learned Advocate for the applicant made a statement that the
applicant had deposited Rs.50,000 in the Family Court, however, he
sought time to produce the receipt. On 07/08/2018, the office remark
shows that the applicant produced the receipt of Rs.50,000/- deposited
before the Family Court.
3. This matter was listed again on 21st August 2026, wherein
this Court observed that the applicant was not in touch with his and
84.18revn
(3)
the Advocate for the applicant sought time by way of a last chance till
today.
4. The applicant, who was working as a teacher under the
Municipal Council, Latur was directed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Latur to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. to
the wife and Rs.300/- p.m. each to son and daughter. In the year 2008,
the respondents filed proceedings under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for
an enhancement in the maintenance amount. On 27/01/2012, the said
application came to be allowed with effect from 09/01/2008, and as per
the enhanced amount, the applicant came to be directed to pay
RS.800/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.700/- p.m. each to both the children.
5. It is the case of the applicant that respondent
No.3/daughter Pratiksha got married and the age of the son is also 26
years of age. Thus, both the children have attained majority. Still, the
application came to be filed by respondent No.1(wife) showing them
as minors. The said application was filed for the recovery of an
amount of Rs.56,900/-
6. On 27/03/2017, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
457/2012 came to be transferred to the Principal Family Court, Latur,
and renumbered as Petition E.R. No. 44 of 2017. The learned Family
84.18revn
(4)
Court, on 16/12/2017, passed the order and issued a warrant of
recovery for the amount of ₹1,04,100. The learned Family Court, on
21/02/2018, passed the order that only on depositing ₹1,04,100, the
applicant be released, otherwise, he be sent to jail with a conviction
warrant.
7. The record discloses that the applicant, after his release,
deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- before the Family Court. As
regards the remaining amount, there is no submission from the learned
Advocates for the parties. However, it appears that till date, since
nobody is coming forward with specific instructions from the parties,
the matter does not require any specific order by this Court.
8. As the instant criminal revision application was filed in
the year 2018, and there is also a reference in the application that the
children have attained majority and the daughter is married, in such an
eventuality, it is not desirable to pass any further order in this matter.
9. Therefore, the instant matter is being disposed of with no
order as to costs. However, since there is no assistance from the
applicant to his learned Advocate, in the event, the grievance persists
and a cause of action survives, the parties will be at liberty to approach
this Court again.
84.18revn
(5)
10. With above observations, this criminal revision
application is disposed of.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk
Checking your session…