Remanded

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2019WP/1091/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge that dismissed a revision under Section 127 CrPC regarding maintenance enhancement, as the lower court failed to adjudicate a crucial dispute concerning agricultural land provided to the wife, directing remand for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order in Cri. Rev. Application No. 279 of 2015 dated 4.7.2017 is quashed, set aside, and the application is restored to the file for fresh decision by the Additional Sessions

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane Vs the State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 938 CrWP 1091-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1091 OF 2017

¶4

Tulshiram Fakirrba Sonavane

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

.......

¶10

Mr. S. C. Arora, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. P. Basarkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1-
State.

¶11

Mr. V. B. Garud, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶12

.......

¶13

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
 DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2019

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

01.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

¶16

02.Petitioner-husband is represented by Mr.
S. S. Arora. Respondent No. 1-State is represented
by Mr. A. P. Basarkar and Respondent No. 2-wife is
represented by Mr. V. B. Garud. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner assailed in this petition the

¶17

Judgment and Order passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-2 Aurangabad on 4.7.2017 in Cri.
Revision No. 279 of 2015, whereby the learned
Revisional Court dismissed the revision. According

¶18

2 938 CrWP 1091-2017

¶19

to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Order
passed by the learned Revisional Court is cryptic
one and the learned Revisional Court has not
considered the case of the petitioner at all from
the point of the agricultural land that was given to
the respondent No. 2.

¶20

03.On the other hand, Mr. Garud the learned
Counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the
impugned Judgment.

¶21

04.There is no dispute that the respondent
No. 2 is legally married wife of the petitioner and
their matrimony is still in existence. There is no
dispute amongst the parties that first application
under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was filed by the
respondent No. 2-wife in the year 1987 and it was
registered as 93/1987 and the said was granted and
petitioner husband was directed to pay maintenance
the of Rs. 100/- per month. Subsequently,
respondent No. 2 was required to file an application
under Section 127 of the Cr. P. C. for enhancement
in the year 1993 and it was registered as Misc.
Application No. 145/1993 and the said was also
allowed and the maintenance was enhanced from Rs.
150/- to Rs. 325/-. There is also no dispute that
subsequently in 1997 the wife filed the petition for

¶22

3 938 CrWP 1091-2017

¶23

enhancement before the Family Court, Aurangabad and
the said was registered as Petition No. 1369/1997.
However, the learned Judge of the Family Court on
6.7.1998 allowed the said application and enhanced
the maintenance amount from Rs. 325/- to 425/-.

¶24

05.Be that as it may, in the year 2012 the
respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 127
of Cr. P. C. for enhancement of the maintenance and
the said was registered as Misc. Cri. Appln No. 247
of 2012. The said was allowed by the learned
Magistrate on 25.11.2015 and the petitioner-husband
was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per
month.

¶25

06.Feeling aggrieved thereby the revision was
preferred before the Revisional Court and the
learned Revisional Court on 4.7.2017 passed the
impugned Judgment.

¶26

07.Before the Revisional Court it was pointed

¶27

out by the present petitioner that in order to
provide the maintenance, the husband had purchased
and delivered agricultural land to the wife and
therefore, she is not entitled for the maintenance.
This particular position is seriously disputed by
the learned Counsel for the respondent-wife Mr.

¶28

4 938 CrWP 1091-2017

¶29

Garud. However, fact remains that this particular
submission is germane and goes to the root of the
matter.

¶30

08.When such submission was made before the
learned Judge, Revisional Court, it was expected
from the learned Revisional Court to decide the said
aspect and record the finding in accordance with
law. However, perusal of the impugned Judgment
would reveal that the learned Judge of the
Revisional Court has not bestowed his thoughtful
consideration on the said issue and has mechanically
dismissed the revision. In that view of the matter,
the prejudice is caused to the husband. Therefore,
in my view, this Court should exercise the power of
remand and shall remit back the matter to the
Revisional Court, deciding the matter afresh.
Consequently, I pass following Order;

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i)Petition is allowed.

¶33

(ii)The Judgment and Order in Cri. Rev.
Application No. 279 of 2015 datd 4.7.2017 is
hereby quashed and set aside.

¶34

(iii)Cri. Rev. Application No. 279 of 2015 filed

¶35

by the petitioner is restored to the file and

¶36

5 938 CrWP 1091-2017

¶37

The Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is
directed to decide the said revision afresh
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
parties to revision afresh within six months
from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶38

(iv)Both the parties are directed to appear before
the Revisional Court on 2.4.2019 so that fresh
notices need not be issued.

¶39

(v)With this, the petition is disposed of.

¶40

 [V.M. DESHPANDE]
 JUDGE

¶41

Dahibhate/-

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake Vs the State of Maharashra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others