Dismissed¶¶28

Shaikh Mohammad Imran S/O Shaikh Chand v. Yasmin Naz W/O Shaikh Mohammad Imran and Another

Bombay HC10 Jun 2024REVN/31/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

maintenance; Section 125 CrPC; Family Court Jalgaon; Petition E.No.88 of 2019; criminal revision application dismissed; refusal and neglect to maintain wife and daughter; deliberate leaving of matrimonial home not proved; quantum fixed on Rs.28,000/- monthly salary; Schizophrenia subsequent facts; legal remedy available; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005; Women Redressel Forum compromise; alleged denial of opportunity of hearing; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; S. G. Mehare, J.; 2024:BHC-AUG:10822

What did the court decide?

The Family Court duly evaluated the evidence and concluded that the petitioner had refused to maintain the respondents and failed to prove that they had deliberately left his company; the material on record was sufficient to believe the respondents. ¶¶24

Shaikh Mohammad Imran S/O Shaikh Chand Vs Yasmin Naz W/O… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's order granting maintenance warrants interference in revision, having regard to the petitioner's complaints that he was denied an opportunity of hearing and that the evidence was not correctly appreciated. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The complaint of denial of opportunity of hearing does not stand: the petitioner himself did not avail the opportunity to advance oral arguments before the Family Court.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

Considering the petitioner's income — he was in employment and earning Rs.28,000/- per month at the relevant time — the Family Court correctly determined the quantum of maintenance.ratio¶¶23
The petitioner's plea that Schizophrenia reduced his income and ability to pay relates to subsequent facts that were not before the Family Court; a legal remedy is available for that purpose, so it does not warrant interference with the impugned order.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), S. G. Mehare, J. — Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 2023 dismissed (10-06-2024). Husband's revision challenge to the Family Court, Jalgaon order dated 01.12.2022 in Petition E.No.88 of 2019 granting maintenance (S.125 CrPC) to his wife Yasmin Naz and daughter fails: the Family Court properly appreciated the evidence; the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents had deliberately left his company, having refused to maintain them; the quantum was correctly determined against his Rs.28,000/- per month earnings; and his later plea that Schizophrenia reduced his income concerned subsequent facts not before the Family Court, for which a separate legal remedy is available. No order as to costs.

¶1

63-CrRn-31-23.odt

¶2

¶3

2024:BHC-AUG:10822

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2023

¶6

SHAIKH MOHAMMAD IMRAN S/O SHAIKH CHAND VERSUS

¶7

YASMIN NAZ W/O SHAIKH MOHAMMAD IMRAN AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. N. E. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Naseem R. Shaikh

¶9

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 10-06-2024

¶10

PER COURT:-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jalgaon, passed in Petition E.No.88 of 2019, dated 01.12.2022, granting maintenance to the respondents.

¶13

The facts of the case reveal that the respondents were driven away from the matrimonial house. The respondent/wife has alleged against the petitioner/husband that she was ill-treated for not fulfilling the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase a plot and construction of the house as well as delivery of a female child. The matter went to the Women Redressel Forum, Jalgaon. A compromise took place between them. The petitioner assured her

¶14

63-CrRn-31-23.odt

¶15

¶16

good behaviour, but did not keep his words. The petitioner and his family members were insisting her for divorce as he wanted to marry another girl. Further, the facts of the case were that even after the settlement, they could not lead their matrimonial life happily. Initially, the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected only on the ground that she is already receiving maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This Court remitted the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Jalgaon with a direction to decide the matter afresh.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court did not give an opportunity of hearing and advance the arguments and directly decided the application without hearing. He also submits that the evidence has not been correctly appreciated. The subsequent development in this matter is that due to Schizophrenia the applicant did not attend the work. Therefore, he was getting salary only Rs.3,000/- per month. He submits that the petitioner has no source of income, he never denied to maintain and cohabit with respondents. The impugned order is illegal and against the law.

¶18

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife and

¶19

63-CrRn-31-23.odt

¶20

¶21

daughter submits that the learned Judge, Family Court has correctly appreciated the evidence. It has been established that the petitioner has refused and neglected to maintain the respondents. The facts of Schizophrenia and lessening income were not before the Judge, Family Court. These are the s sequent facts. The petitioner is serving in railway administration department and getting salary of Rs.28,000/- per month.

¶22

Perused the impugned judgment and order.

¶23

The impugned order reveals that the learned Judge, Family Court has evaluated the evidence relevant to the allegations. It appears that ach and every fact has been appreciated. At the relevant time, the petitioner was in employment and earning Rs.28,000/- per month.

¶24

The petitioner did not avail the opportunity to advance the oral arguments before the Court. However, the learned Judge, Family Court in the exercise of his power and on appreciating the facts and evidence, and concluded that the petitioner had refused to maintain the respondents, and he failed to prove that the respondents had deliberately left his company. The material placed on record was sufficient to believe the respondents.

¶25

Considering the income, the learned Judge, Family Court

¶26

4 63-CrRn-31-23.odt

¶27

has correctly determined the quantum. There is no merit in the petition. The fact that Schizophrenia caused his income and making him unable to pay the separate maintenance were not before the Court. For this purpose a legal remedy is available. The impugned order is free from infirmity and does not warrant interference.

¶28

For the reasons mentioned above, the revision application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

rrd

Shaikh Mohammad Imran S/O Shaikh Chand v. Yasmin Naz W/O Shaikh Mohammad Imran and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Mohammad Imran S/O Shaikh Chand v. Yasmin Naz W/O Shaikh Mohammad Imran and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Shamrao Gavali and Anr. Vs the Executive Director Gmidc through the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division NO1 and Anr.

Sadashiv Barku Alias Barikrao Kshirsagar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Amina @ Sultana Raj Shah vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sambhaji Mohan Dahatonde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachin Bhaskar Ambhore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prabhu Ananda Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another