Bombay High Court

VASANTRAO S/O. SUBHASHRAO MAGARversusKALPANA W/O. VASANTRAO MAGAR

Disposal: RULE DISCHARGED
Bench: Y G KHOBRAGADE

Holding

The petition is dismissed and the maintenance order of Rs.5,000 per month is upheld.

Summary

The petition stems from a marriage in 2000 that broke down in 2006, leading the wife to file a criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 494 IPC and later a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court ordered the husband to pay Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance, a decision affirmed by the revisional court. The husband challenged the maintenance order, alleging the trial court failed to consider his financial capacity and the compromise deed offering land in lieu of cash. The High Court examined the evidence, noting the wife’s lack of income and the husband’s agricultural earnings, and found no material to overturn the lower courts' findings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the maintenance order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in fixing maintenance at Rs.5,000 per month without proper consideration of the husband's income and financial condition.
Whether the revisional court correctly affirmed the maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC.
Whether the compromise deed offering land in lieu of cash affects the maintenance liability.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 494, 498A
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
divorce
matrimonial dispute
revision
Hindu marriage
financial capacity

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:1414

932-Cri-WP-1465-2018.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
932 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1465 OF 2018
Vasantrao Subhashrao Magar
Age: 47 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Daudgaon, Tq. Aundha,
District Hingoli … PETITIONER
(Orig. Opponent)
VERSUS
Kalpana w/o Vasantrao Magar
Age: 37 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Savangi, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani … RESPONDENT
(Ori. Applicant)
.…
Mr. B. N. Magar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil a/w Mr. Dinesh Lingayat, Advocate for
Respondent
.…

CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

DATE : January 08, 2026
ORDER :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent

of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at

admission stage.

2. At the outset, it is submitted that vide order dated

10.11.2025, the petitioner and the respondent were directed to

remain present personally before this Court on 19.11.2025 at 2.30

1 of 7
(( 2 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018

p.m., to ascertain the possibility of amicable settlement. However, on

that day, it was informed that the petitioner was not in a position to

remain personally present before this Court. Therefore, another

chance was given and both parties were directed to remain present on

04.12.2025. However, on that day neither the petitioner and

Respondent nor their counsel remained present.

3. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

informed this Court that the petitioner is underwent angioplasty

surgery last year and presently he is suffering from serious ailment of

cancer. Therefore, both parties are called upon to argue the matter on

merits.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that in

the year 2000, the petitioner and the respondent got married as per

the Hindu customs and rites. There is no issue out of their

matrimonial relationship. Due to some matrimonial differences and

lodging of a criminal complaint by the respondent under Section

498A of the I.P.C. and a complaint under Section 494 of the I.P.C.,

both the parties are not on good terms and they are residing

separately since 2006. Ultimately, the petitioner has filed H.M.P. No.1

of 2015 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani, seeking

2 of 7
(( 3 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018

decree of divorce, wherein a compromise between the parties was

arrived. However, said compromise was not futile, therefore, the

respondent filed proceeding bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.

884 of 2016 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and prayed for maintenance.

After conclusion of the trial, on 05.12.2017, the learned J.M.F.C.,

passed an order and directed the present petitioner to pay

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the respondent.

5. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioner/husband

filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 167 of 2017, whereas the present

respondent / wife had filed Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2018, seeking

enhancement of maintenance. On 04.09.2018, the learned Revisional

Court passed an impugned order and dismissed the revision filed by

the petitioner. Similarly, on 06.09.2018, the learned Revisional Court

passed an order in Criminal Revision No.20 of 2018 (Kalpana

Vasantrao Magar Vs. Vasantrao Subhashrao Magar), and dismissed the

revision filed by the respondent.

6. By the present petition, the petitioner only challenges the

order dated 04.09.2018, passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal

Revision Petition No. 167 of 2017, arising out of the judgment and

3 of 7
(( 4 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018

order dated 05.12.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 884

of 2016, wherein, the petitioner is under obligation to pay

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m..

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that

during the pendency of H.M.P. No.1 of 2015, the petitioner and the

respondent had entered into a compromise wherein the petitioner

had shown his readiness to give 1 Hectare of agricultural land instead

of paying a cash amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh).

Accordingly, on 05.01.2016, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,

Parbhani, passed an order below Exh.1 in H.M.P. No.1 of 2015.

However, on that day, the respondent/wife was absent for verification

and therefore, the said petition came to be dismissed.

8. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has

passed an order and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. without

considering financial condition as well as earning capacity of the

petitioner. So also, the learned Revisional Court failed to consider the

income of the present petitioner and confirmed the order of trial

Court in mechanical manner, hence, prayed for quash and set aside

both the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below.

4 of 7
(( 5 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

supported findings recorded by both the courts below. The learned

counsel appearing for the respondent canvassed that although the

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized

in the year 2000 but they are not blessed with a child. The petitioner

was driven out of her matrimonial home on account of her inability to

bear a child on the eve of Diwali, 2006. Therefore, Respondent took

shelter at her parental house and since then the petitioner neglected

to maintain his wife/respondent. It is further canvassed that, though

the settlement-deed was executed between the petitioner and

Respondent but the petitioner refused to comply with compromise-

deed. Therefore, no option was left with the respondent except to file

proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. After conclusion of the trial

and taking into consideration the evidence of both sides as well as

financial status and income of the petitioner, the learned trial Court

directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m., which

has been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court on 04.09.2018.

Therefore, considering hike of price of daily needs, the impugned

order is just and proper, hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5 of 7
(( 6 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018

10. It is well settled principle of law that, it is the obligatory

duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children and in case the

husband failed to maintain his wife and children, the remedy under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. is available including Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act, Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act.,

etc.

11. It is settled proposition of law that considering the

income and social status of the husband, the wife is entitled for the

specific quantum of maintenance. In the case of Kalyan Dey

Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury NEE Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383 ,

wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case of

Dr.Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Anr, (1070) 3 SCC 129 and

held that the wife would be entitled for maintenance at least 25%

income of her husband.

12. In the case in hand, the learned trial Court passed an

Judgment and order on 05.12.2017 after considering evidence

available on record as well as income of the present petitioner from

the agricultural property and other sources and directed the present

6 of 7
(( 7 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018

petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m.. On 04.09.2018, the

learned Revisional Court passed the impugned order and dismissed

the revision after re-visiting the record.

13. Needless to say that, the respondent/wife has specifically

stated in her affidavit that she has no any source of income and she is

dependent on the income of her husband / petitioner. So also, the

petitioner is having sufficient source of income and also drawing

income from his agricultural land. Though the petitioner has availed

sufficient opportunity to rebut claim of the Respondent but he failed

to bring any material to show that, the Respondent/wife having any

source of income, as well as the petitioner has failed to bring any

special circumstances on record to show that he is not entitled to pay

such maintenance to the respondent /wife. Therefore, the findings

recorded by both the courts below are appears just and proper and no

substantial grounds are set out to interfere with those findings.

Therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is

dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…