The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition and revision application challenging maintenance orders. It upheld the findings that the husband failed to prove his income, drawing an adverse inference, and noted that the domestic violence proceedings were correctly decided.
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.
( 1 ) crwp1355.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
42 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1355 OF 2018 WITH REVN/64/2022
RIYAZ SHAIKH YAKUB MANYAR VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Mr.N.S. Shah h.f. Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Y.G. Gujarati, APP for the respondent/State. Mr.V.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATED : 24.04.2023
PC :-
decided together by consent of the parties.
Rs.2500/- towards maintenance and Rs.2000/- towards expenses of the application.
on 04.10.2009. For initial years both the parties stayed together. However, later on the husband started refusing and neglecting to maintain the wife. The wife, therefore, filed application under the DV Act on the allegation that because of act of violence, she was aborted twice. The accused husband used to assault her and used to demand Rs.5000/- per month from her father. When she was pregnant for the first time, she was given some tablets and made her to abort. She was not looked after well and she was reached to her parents’ house. She was not taken back to the matrimonial house. The parents were told to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and it is only thereafter the wife will be taken to their matrimonial house. When the wife was pregnant for the second time, even that time she was not looked after properly. The husband used to assault her. He had given kicks on the stomach of the wife.
husband filed Criminal Revision Application No.241 of 2016 in which orders came to be passed as stated in the opening para of this order.
( 6 ) crwp1355.18
admitted that he was in the business of supply of Banana. His father was working in Municipal Council and his brothers are also working in Municipal Council. Thus, it is sufficiently brought on record that he is from well to do family, while awarding maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month. In the DV Act the Sessions Court has already taken into consideration the amount that was granted to the wife under the proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Considering all the above facts, this Court finds that the Sessions Court in DV proceedings, has rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no case made out by the husband to cause interference in the said order.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2023/APR23/crwp1355.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should disturb the findings of fact regarding the petitioner's income and inability to maintain the wife.
Whether the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and relief under the DV Act warrants interference in the present writ proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
RIYAZ SHAIKH
YAKUB MANYAR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ANR
KISHORE C. SANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
