Dismissed

Kishanrao Mahadu Kadam v. Bakubai Kishanrao Kadam

Bombay HC6 Sept 2013APPLN/2620/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, a husband employed in Railways, sought to quash an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC, arguing she could maintain herself from her honorarium. The High Court rejected the claim, finding the lower courts properly considered admissible evidence regarding insufficient income.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application was dismissed.

Kishanrao Mahadu Kadam Vs Bakubai Kishanrao Kadam — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2620 OF 2011

¶3

KISHANRAO MAHADU KADAM VERSUS

¶4

BUKABAI KISHANRAO KADAM

¶5

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.V. Gundre h/f Mr. Gunale V.D.

¶6

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: September 06, 2013

¶7

ORAL ORDER :-

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the husband of the respondent. The respondent had filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the learned Magistrate, after holding due inquiry into the matter, allowed the same directing the applicant herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent.

¶9

Aggrieved by this order, the applicant herein approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but the Court of Sessions dismissed the revision.

¶10

Being Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court, invoking its inherent powers.

¶11

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant, I have gone through the relevant parts of the Judgment delivered by the Magistrate, as also by the Sessions Court. I have also gone through the other annexures to the present application,

¶12

sga

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

to which my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. That, the applicant is having sufficient means and is gainfully employed in the Railways, is also not in dispute. The only dispute is that according to the applicant, the respondent is able to maintain herself. It appears that the respondent is working as `Anganwadi Sevika’ but the amount which she gets as honorarium per month is only about Rs.900/-. A certificate, which was not produced before the Magistrate or before the Sessions Court, has been annexed to the present application and even if this is taken into consideration it shows the honorarium which the respondent gets is Rs.1150/per month.

¶16

Both the courts below have held that the honorarium, which the respondent gets, is not sufficient for her maintenance. Holding so, they have ordered the applicant to pay maintenance to her.

¶17

I find that the conclusions arrived at by the Magistrate and by the Sessions Court are based on a consideration and evaluation of the evidence adduced during the inquiry. It is not that the conclusions have been arrived at on consideration of the material inadmissible as evidence, or that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration for arriving at the ultimate conclusion. It is not that relevant evidence was excluded from consideration.

¶18

sga

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶20

The orders passed under Section 125 of the Code do not purport to decide the civil rights of the parties finally. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has not made such orders appealable.

¶21

No case for exercising the inherent powers of this Court, which are meant to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to prevent the miscarriage of justice, is made out.

¶22

8. The application is dismissed.

¶23

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶24

...

¶25

sga

Kishanrao Mahadu Kadam v. Bakubai Kishanrao Kadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishanrao Mahadu Kadam v. Bakubai Kishanrao Kadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadhar Dattatraya Shelge Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Ramling Baburao Swami and Ors. Vs State of Mah

Baban Trimbak Bhairat Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Bhivsen Deoram Kandekar Vs Arun B Bhalsingh and Anr.

Bhivsen Deoram Kandekar Vs Shri Rajiv Gandhi Sahakari Nagari Path Sanstha Maryadit and Ors.

Santosh Ghanshyam Ghungarrao Vs Sudarshan @ Barku Dhondiba Suryawanshi and Ors.