This order dismisses a criminal revision application challenging the legality of an order enhancing monthly maintenance awarded to the wife and two children of the applicant.
The criminal revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
23-revn-266-2022.doc
Sonali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.266 OF 2022
Nitin Dadahari Pol...Applicant
Versus
Varsha Nitin Pol & Ors....Respondents
Mr. Yash Fadtare i/b. Mr. Vaibhav Kadam, for the Applicant.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER 2023
P.C.:
1.Heard Mr. Yash Fadtare, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant.
2.The Applicant by way of the present Criminal Revision
Application is challenging the legality and validity of order dated 4th
October 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.5, Nashik in Criminal Revision Application No.181 of 2018. By the
said order dated 4th October 2021, the said Criminal Revision
Application was dismissed. Thus, as a result of said dismissal, order
dated 6th June 2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Nashik Road in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.59 of 2017 is confirmed.
3.It is undisputed position that by order dated 13th December
2011 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.227 of 2009,
1/3
23-revn-266-2022.doc
Sonali
an amount of Rs.1,500/- was directed to be paid per month each to
the present Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Respondent No.1 is wife of
the Applicant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of
Applicant-husband and Respondent No.1-wife. As far as the said
order is concerned, the same has attained finality. Thereafter, on 6th
February 2017, the present Respondents filed application bearing
Miscellaneous Application No.59 of 2017 inter alia seeking
enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.10,000/- to each
of the present Respondents. In the said application, it is the
contention of Respondents that the present Applicant is an Advocate
and apart from that, he has got agricultural land. It is contended that
he owns cars, a large office and that his income is more than
Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/- per annum. It has been contended
that, as the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 require expenses for their
education and tuitions and due to increasing costs, higher
maintenance is required.
4.The learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 6th June 2018 granted
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to each of the Respondents instead of
Rs.10,000/- claimed by them. The said order is confirmed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Nashik.
2/3
23-revn-266-2022.doc
Sonali
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant that he has ceased to practice as an Advocate. However,
both the Courts have concurrently held that although it is the
contention of the Applicant that the Applicant has stopped his
professional work as an Advocate, there is nothing on record to
indicate that he has surrendered his Sanad or that he is not
practicing. In fact, in the title of the present Criminal Revision
Application also the Applicant has described his profession as
Advocate. Thus, it is clear that the Applicant is practicing Advocate.
Apart from that, Applicant is having agricultural lands. Both the
Courts have observed that order granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/-
to each of the Respondents dated 13th December 2011 has attained
finality and due to increase in the costs and educational expenses,
Rs.5,000/-as maintenance is granted to each of the Respondents.
There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed
however, with no order as to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order increasing maintenance was based on lawful grounds and free from perversity.
Whether the fact that the applicant has ceased to practice as an Advocate is a mistaken view adopted by the lower courts.
Nitin Dadahari Pol
Varsha Nitin Pol
MADHAV J. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court