SHIVAJI DNYANU HOLKARversusMUKTABAI SHIVAJI HOLKAR AND ANR.

                                                         903-WP-715-2006 (CR).docx


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 715 OF 2006

      Shivaji Dnyanu Holkar,
      Age 40 yrs., Occupation Service,
      R/o. Babu Genu Nagar, D.P. Wadi, Ghodapdev,
      Building No.1, Room No.14, Mumbai - 33.                      … Petitioner
                            Versus
  1. Muktabai Shivaji Holkar,
     Age 29 yrs., Occupation : STD Shop, R/o. Kole,
     Taluka Sangola, District Solapur.
  2. The State of Maharashtra
  3. Parvati @ Geeta Shivaji Holkar,
     Age 22 yrs.,
     R/o. Babu Genu Nagar, D.P. Wadi, Ghodapdeo,
     Building No.1, Room No.14, Mumbai – 33.                       … Respondents


                                          ----
Mr. Machhandra Patil i/b. Mr. Vijay Garad for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.A. Lawate for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State.
                                        -------

                                 Coram :       ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                 Date      :   20th August 2026.

Oral Judgement :


1.     Heard Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. B.

A. Lawate, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nitin Patil,

learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2-State.


osk                               1 of 4
                                                        903-WP-715-2006 (CR).docx


2.    By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

Petitioner is assailing the Order dated 9th January 2006 passed by the 2nd Ad

hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur (“Revisional Court”), in Criminal

Revision Application    No. 21 of 2005, by which the Sessions Court has

maintained the Order dated 5th February 2005 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Sangola (“Magistrate”), in Criminal M.A. No. 81 of

2001 directing the Petitioner to pay the maintenance allowance under

Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) @ Rs.500/- per

month to the Respondent No. 1, wife, from the date of filing of the said

application.


3.    Rule was issued on 30th August 2007.


4.    Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that

the Revisional Court failed to consider that the amount of Rs.500/- per

month ordered by the Magistrate as maintenance allowance to Respondent

No.1 is exorbitant.


5.    Mr. B. A. Lawate, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, submits that

Respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and therefore requires

maintenance for her sustenance. He submits that the Magistrate, on the

subsequent     Application   filed   by   Respondent   No.   1,   enhanced   the

maintenance amount. He submits that the Petitioner has not complied with



osk                                  2 of 4
                                                         903-WP-715-2006 (CR).docx


the order passed by the Magistrate, has defaulted in payment and is in

arrears.


6.    Perused the records.


7.    Apparently, the Petitioner failed to fulfill his filial duty by providing

financial support to the Respondent No. 1 – wife, who being unable to

maintain herself, was compelled to knock at the doors of the Court of the

Magistrate to enforce her right under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. The

Magistrate exercised discretion in favour of the Respondent No. 1 by granting

maintenance allowance. The Petitioner drew the Respondent No. 1 before the

Revisional Court. Unsuccessful in Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of

2005, the Petitioner brings Respondent No. 1 before this Court, challenging

the maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground that the said quantum

is exorbitant. To add to the woes of financial hardship of the Respondent No.

1, the Petitioner defaults in making payment as per the Order dated 5 th

February 2005 passed by the Magistrate.


8.    The conduct and approach of the Petitioner, including challenging the

maintenance amount of a paltry Rs. 500/- per month, give an impression that

the Petitioner harbours the view that the right to maintenance under section

125 of the Cr.P.C. is a benefit received by the wife, ignoring that it is a legal

and moral duty owed by the husband to his wife.



osk                                3 of 4
                                                                              903-WP-715-2006 (CR).docx


                     9.       The contention of Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the

                     Petitioner, that the amount of Rs.500/- per month is excessive, is liable to be

                     taken note of for the limited purpose of rejecting it. The said contention of

                     the Petitioner defeats the very object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which is to

                     prevent destitution and ensure dignity of the wife who is unable to maintain

                     herself.


                     10.      Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in this

                     Petition. The Order dated 9th January 2006 passed by the Revisional Court in

                     Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2005 is well reasoned.


                     11.      This Petition is devoid of merits, as such dismissed. Rule discharged.


                     12.      Though I was leaning towards imposing costs, I do not impose costs on

                     the persuasion of Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner.


                     13.      Writ Petition No. 715 of 2006 is disposed of.




                                                                    [ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]

           Digitally signed
           by OMKAR
           SHIVAHAR
OMKAR      KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
           2026.08.21
           18:30:21
           +0530




                     osk                                 4 of 4