Bombay High Court
Dattu Dada DhereversusShobha Dattu Dhere
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A compromise under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not preclude a later civil suit for maintenance.
Summary
The husband, Dattu Dada Dhere, appealed a decree granting his wife, Shobha Dattu Dhere, a maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000 per month. The appeal challenged the lower courts' decisions, arguing that a prior compromise under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code barred the civil suit for maintenance and violated natural justice. The trial court had found the wife unable to maintain herself and ordered maintenance, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The appellant contended that a settlement of Rs.18,500 paid under the Section 125 proceeding should preclude any further claim. The High Court held that a compromise in a Section 125 proceeding does not extinguish the wife's right to seek maintenance in a civil suit, as the statutes provide independent remedies. Finding no perversity or substantial question of law, the court dismissed the second appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars a subsequent civil suit for maintenance.
- Whether the impugned judgment violates the principles of natural justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- civil suit
- compromise
- natural justice
- second appeal
- marital duty
- family law
Judgment
1
35-SA-108-2026(C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2026
Dattu Dada Dhere ]
Age- 58 years. Occu: Farmer, ]
R/oj. Kumbhargaon, ]
Tal – Karmala, Dist. - Solapur. ] …...Appellant
(Original Defendant)
VERSUS
Shobha Dattu Dhere, ]
Age – 51 years, Occu – Labour & Tailoring, ]
R/o. Shetphal, Taluka – Karmala, ]
Dist. - Kolhapur. ]…...Respondent
(Original Plaintiff)
Digitally signed
by SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
DHUDUM
SHANKARSA
DHUDUM Date:
2026.09.07
17:40:38
-------
+0530
Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav, Appointed Advocate for the Appellant (Through
Legal Aid).
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026.
Oral Judgment:
1. Heard Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav, learned Advocate for the
Appellant.
2. By this Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), the Appellant assails the Judgment and
Decree dated 7th January, 2026, passed by the Extra Joint District Judge,
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
35-SA-108-2026(C).DOC
Barshi, District Solapur (“Appellate Court”), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29
of 2019 (“impugned judgement”), whereby the Appellate Court has
endorsed the Judgment and Decree dated 3rd January, 2019, passed by the
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karmala, District Solapur (“Trial Court”), in
Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013, which granted a maintenance allowance
of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Respondent.
3. In Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013, the Appellant (husband) is
the Defendant and the Respondent (wife) is the Plaintiff.
4. The Respondent, the legally married wife of the Appellant, who
had been married to the Appellant for approximately 20 to 25 years,
instituted Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013 for maintenance, as the
Appellant was not providing her maintenance, leaving the Respondent
unable to maintain herself.
5. The Appellant contested the suit and even alleged that the
Respondent was living in adultery with Ramdas Jadhav.
6. After considering the material on record and the evidence of the
witnesses examined by the parties, the Trial Court found the Respondent
entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and consequently decreed
the Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013.
7. The Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the Judgment and
Decree dated 3rd January, 2019, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.121 of
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
35-SA-108-2026(C).DOC
2013, before the Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment, the
Appellate Court upheld the maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- per
month granted to the Respondent.
8. Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav, learned Advocate for the Appellant,
submits that the proceedings filed by the Respondent under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), were compromised
between the parties and that the Appellant had paid Rs.18,500/- as full
and final settlement. It is thus the contention of Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav
that, in view of the compromise under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the
Respondent was barred from maintaining the Regular Civil Suit No.121 of
2013 seeking maintenance. He has proposed the following substantial
question of law at ground (a) of the memo of appeal, which reads as
under:-
“(a) That the impugned judgment and decree is against the
principle of natural justice?”
9. Perused the record with the assistance of Mr. Pravikumar Yadav,
learned Advocate for the Appellant.
10. The plaint reveals that the Respondent was compelled to file the
Regular Civil Suit No. 121 of 2013 because the Appellant husband refused
and neglected to maintain her. As a result, the Respondent was unable to
meet her day-to-day needs and could not sustain herself. The Appellant has
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
35-SA-108-2026(C).DOC
not brought any material on record to show that the Respondent had any
independent source of income or any means to maintain herself.
11. The filial duty of the husband is to maintain his legally married
wife and to ensure that she is not reduced to penury but is able to sustain
herself in accordance with the standard of living of the Appellant. The
Appellate Court, after assessing the material on record, has detailed that
the Appellant is the owner of land Gat No.34/6 ad-measuring 02 H 02 R
and Gat No.34/10 ad-measuring 01 H 01 R, with a 1/3rd share in well
water, thus concluding that the Appellant has the wherewithal to maintain
the Respondent.
12. The Appellant attempted to deny the Respondent’s claim for
maintenance by alleging that the Respondent is having an illicit
relationship with a person named Ramdas Jadhav. Apart from making
these bald allegations, the Appellant led no evidence to substantiate them.
Such unsubstantiated allegations would themselves constitute cruelty to
the wife.
13. There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the
Respondent -wife is unable to sustain herself, that she was denied
maintenance and that the Appellant, despite having means, has failed in
his filial duty towards his wife.
14. The Trial Court, after assessing the evidence of the witnesses
examined by the parties, has concluded that the Respondent has no source
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5
35-SA-108-2026(C).DOC
of income and that the amount quantified as Rs.3,000/- would be adequate
to maintain the Respondent. Despite the amount of Rs. 3,000/- being
meagre, the Appellant has drawn the Respondent before the Appellate
Court and now before this Appeal. The Appellate Court has maintained the
Judgment and Decree dated 3rd January, 2019, passed in Regular Civil Suit
No.121 of 2013.
15. With reference to the contention of Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav,
learned Advocate for the Appellant, that in view of the compromise in the
proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C., the Respondent could not
maintain a suit for maintenance, the same is required to be taken on record
only for the limited purpose of rejecting it. The legislative mandate
envisages the grant of maintenance to the wife under various Statutes
enacted to provide for maintenance to the wife and nowhere is the
intention of the legislature that once any order is passed in either
proceeding, the said order would debar re-adjudication of the issue of
maintenance in any other Court. The proceedings under Section 125 of the
Cr. P. C. are summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy
to the wife. Any order passed in such proceedings under Section 125 of the
Cr. P. C., whether by compromise or otherwise, would not foreclose the
wife's remedy under any other statute.
16. In view of the above, I do not find any perversity in the
impugned order passed by the Appellate Court or the Trial Court. No
Shantanu S. Dhudum
6
35-SA-108-2026(C).DOC
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.
The Second Appeal is therefore dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…