Pradnya Shrikant Mule and Another Vs Shrikant Gabaji Mule

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:6816

Judgment

432 revn123.23

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2023

¶7

1. Pradnya Shrikant Mule,
aged about 38 years, occupation: homemaker.

¶8

2. Ravi Shrikant Mule,
through legal guardian mother,
aged about: 9 years,occupation – student.

¶9

Both r/o Shantaram Pargharmor Renuka
.
Nagar Dabki Road, Akola. ….. Applicants

¶10

:: V E R S U S ::

¶11

Shrikant Gabaji Mule,
aged about -42 years, occupation service,
r/o c/o Chandrashekhar Patil Wardhaman

¶12

Nagar Jammer,
R/o “Shrawasti”, Jain Nagda Society,
near water tank, Khamgaon,
.
tahsil Khamgaon, district Buldhana. ….. Non-applicant

¶13

Shri Nitin Munghate, Counsel for Applicants.
None for the Non-applicant.

¶14

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 10/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16/07/2025

¶15

JUDGMENT

.....2/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

2

1.Applicant No.1, who is wife, and applicant No.2,
who is son, of the non-applicant has filed application
bearing Application No.E-64/2021 under Section 125 of
the CrPC for grant of maintenance before learned Judge of
the Family Court at Akola. On 20.3.2023, the said
application came to be allowed directing the non-applicant
to pay Rs.12,000/- and Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance to
applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 respectively from the
date of filing of the application and Rs.25,000/- towards
costs.

¶21

2. Being dissatisfied with the maintenance granted by learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola, the applicants have filed this revision for enhancement of maintenance.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶23

Applicant No.1 and the non-applicant are wife and

¶24

husband. Their marriage was performed on 1.7.2012.

.....3/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

3

After the marriage, the applicant/wife resumed
cohabitation at the house of the non-applicant/husband.
From their wedlock, she gave birth to a son, who is now 9
years old. As per the contention of the applicant/wife,
after the marriage, she was ill-treated by the non-
applicant/husband and his family members. On the
instigation of other family members, the
non-applicant/husband used to ill-treat her and,
therefore, she was constrained to leave her matrimonial
house and take shelter at the house of her parents. After

¶30

she left the matrimonial house, the
non-applicant/husband has not made any provision for
her maintenance and, therefore, she was dependent upon

¶31

income of her parents. The non-applicant/husband filed
an application Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
restitution of conjugal rights before learned CJSD,
Khamgaon bearing Marriage Petition No.125/2015.

.....4/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

4

Subsequently, the said petition was transferred to the
Family Court at Akola and registered as Petition No.A-
141/2017. At the same time, the applicant/wife filed a
proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act. The proceeding was
partly allowed and learned JMFC at Akola in
Misc.Criminal Case No.1682/2015 granted maintenance
@ Rs.3000/- per month to the applicant/wife and
Rs.2000 to applicant/son. The applicant/wife and the
non-applicant/husband both filed appeals before learned
Additional Sessions Judge at Akola and learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal
No.128/2016 enhanced amount of maintenance @
Rs.5000/- per month to the applicant/wife and Rs.3000/-
per month to the applicant/son. Despite of the said order
of enhancing the maintenance amount, the non-
applicant/husband did not pay the amount of the

.....5/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

5

maintenance. In the meanwhile, the matter was settled
between the parties and as per the terms of compromise
dated 22.1.2018, the applicants agreed to reside with the
non-applicant/husband at Mumbai and the non-
applicant/husband was supposed to make arrangement of
school admission of the applicant/son, but the non-
applicant/husband has not complied with the terms and
conditions of the settlement and did not provide the basic
facilities to the applicants. The non-applicant/husband,
only to avoid the payment of maintenance, settled the
matter before the Family Court and insisted the applicant/
wife to make statement that she is leading her happy life
with him and the matter was withdrawn before the Lok

¶42

Adalat. However, as the non-applicant/husband has not
provided basic facilities and also not made arrangement
of the school admission of the applicant/son, the
applicant/wife was constrained to file petition for

.....6/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

6

maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC before the
Family Court at Akola. The non-applicant/husband also
filed petition bearing Petition No.A-194/2018 for
dissolution of marriage wherein interim maintenance was
granted to the applicant/wife @ Rs.6000/- per month, till
final disposal of the petition.

¶48

The Application No.E-64/2021 for grant of maintenance filed by the applicants was decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court granting maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- to the applicant/wife and Rs.8,000/- to the applicant/son from the date of filing of the application and with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

¶49

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of maintenance, the present revision is filed for enhancement of maintenance on the ground that amount of Rs.20,000/- is inadequate to lead the life as per the

.....7/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

7

status of the non-applicant/husband. The non-applicant/
husband is serving in LIC and drawing salary of
Rs.85,000/- per month. Besides the salary, he owns
agricultural land and is getting income of Rs.10.00 Lacs
per annum. As per the contention of the applicant/wife,
he owns his own house in the name of his mother. His
father was serving in police department and owns
agricultural land at Seoni, Akola. Except the applicants,
no other family members are dependents on him and,
therefore, the amount of maintenance deserves to be
enhanced and, therefore, by this revision the applicants
are claiming enhanced amount of maintenance.

¶55

Despite service of the notice and engaging counsel, none appeared to make submissions on behalf of the nonapplicant/husband.

.....8/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

8

Learned counsel Shri Nitin Munghate for the applicants submitted that learned Judge of the Family Court has not considered the income of the nonapplicant/husband and granted inadequate maintenance. The applicant/wife has to incur the expenses towards education of the applicant/son, house rent, and food and clothing etc. The amount granted by learned Judge of the Family Court towards maintenance is inadequate and not sufficient to lead life as per the status of the nonapplicant/husband. The non-applicant/husband is serving in LIC and staying in his own house and drawing handsome salary. Learned Judge of the Family Court has not considered the same. The assets and liabilities given

¶61

by the non-applicant/husband before the Family Court
show that he has sufficient means of income and he is
able to give a separate maintenance to the applicants. His
monthly income shown in the assets and liabilities is

.....9/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

9

Rs.56,688/-, as per the salary certificate for the month of
June 2022. The prices of the essential commodities are
touching to the sky and the expenses to be incurred as to
the education of her child is also rising day by day and,
therefore, for all above these reasons, the amount of
maintenance requires to be enhanced.

¶67

On hearing learned counsel for the applicants and perusing of the entire record, it is not disputed that initially the applicant/wife has filed an application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act wherein learned JMFC at Akola granted maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month to the applicant/wife and Rs.2000 to applicant/son, which came to be enhanced by learned Additional Sessions Judge at Akola in Criminal Appeal No.128/2016 directing to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the applicant/wife and Rs.3000/-

.....10/-

10

Judgment

432 revn123.23

per month to the applicant/son. It is also not disputed
that the non-applicant/husband filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage wherein also the interim alimony
@ Rs.6000/- per month was granted to the applicant/wife
by the Family Court, till disposal of the petition. The said
petition was disposed of finally on 24.1.2020. Thus, from
24.1.2020 to 20.3.2023 she received interim alimony @
Rs.6000 per month in addition to the maintenance
granted to the applicants by learned Additional Sessions
Judge at Akola. Subsequent to that, the applicant/wife
had filed an application bearing Application No.E-64/2021
under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance
before learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola. On
20.3.2023, the said application came to be allowed
directing the non-applicant to pay Rs.12,000/- and
Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance to applicant No.1 and
applicant No.2 respectively from the date of filing of the

.....11/-

11

Judgment

432 revn123.23

application and Rs.25,000/- towards costs. Being
aggrieved with the same, the present revision is filed by
the applicants. The applicant/wife has adduced the
evidence before the Family Court.

¶78

The only issue to be looked into is, whether the applicants are entitled for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

¶79

As per the evidence of the applicant/wife, the nonapplicant/husband is drawing salary of Rs.85000/- and also getting income from the agricultural land. As far as the evidence by adduced by her is concerned, she placed reliance on the salary slip of June 2022 which shows gross earning of the non-applicant/husband is Rs.84,243/- and after deduction, he is drawing salary of Rs.56,688/-.

.....12/-

Judgment

12

432 revn123.23

As far as the income from the agricultural land is
concerned, the agricultural land is standing in the name
of father of the non-applicant/husband. Though the
applicant/wife has stated that the non-applicant/husband
is getting income of Rs.10.00 lacs from the said
agricultural land, the said aspect is not proved by her by
adducing any evidence. Learned Judge of the Family
Court has considered that the non-applicant/husband is
drawing salary of Rs.56,688/-. He is also getting an
income from the agricultural land. Learned Judge of the
Family Court granted amount @ Rs.12,000/- and @
Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance to applicant No.1 and
applicant No.2 respectively from the date of filing of the
application. Thus, the applicants are getting total
maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month.

.....13/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

In addition to that, as per order of learned
Additional Sessions Judge at Akola in Criminal Appeal
No.128/2016, the applicant/wife is getting enhanced
amount of maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month and the
applicant/son is getting @ Rs.3000/- per month.

¶89

Thus, the applicant/wife is getting total amount of
m @ Rs.17000/- per month and applicant/son is getting @
Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶90

Perusal of the evidence on record as well as the

¶91

judgment and order impugned in the revision shows that
the learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the
income of non-applicant/husband and also considered that
the applicants are getting maintenance as per the order of
learned Additional Sessions Judge at Akola in other
proceedings.

.....14/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

14

It is true that the applicants are entitled to lead

¶97

their lives as per their status.

¶98

In the case of Rinku Baheti Vs. Sandesh Sharda, reported in MANU/SC/1374/2024 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

¶99

“14.5 We have serious reservations with the
tendency of parties seeking maintenance or
alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the
other party. It is often seen that parties in their
application for maintenance or alimony
highlight the assets, status and income of their
spouse, and then ask for an amount that can
equal their wealth to that of the spouse.
However, there is an

¶100

inconsistency in this practice, because the
demands of equalisation are made only in
cases where the spouse is a person of means or
is doing well for himself. But such demands
are conspicuously absent in cases where the

.....15/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

15

wealth of the spouse has decreased since the
time of separation. There cannot be two
different approaches to seeking and granting
maintenance or alimony, depending on the
status and income of the spouse. The law of
maintenance is aimed at empowering the
destitute and achieving social justice and
dignity of the individual. The husband is under
a legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his
wife. As per settled law, the wife is entitled to
be maintained as far as possible in a manner
that is similar to what she was accustomed to
in her matrimonial home while the parties
were together. But once the parties have
separated, it cannot be expected of the
husband to maintain her as per his present
status all his life. If the husband has moved
ahead and is fortunately doing better in life
post his separation, then to ask him to always
maintain the status of the wife as per his own
changing status would be putting a burden on
his own personal progress. We wonder, would

.....16/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

16

the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of
wealth with the husband if due to some
unfortunate events post-separation, he has
been rendered a pauper?”

¶111

The law with respect to deciding the amount of permanent alimony is settled by the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the case of Kiran Jyot Maini

¶112

vs. Anish Pramod Patel, reported in (2024)7 SCR 942, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the facts as follows:

¶113

“The status of the parties is a significant factor,
encompassing their social standing, lifestyle,
and financial background. The reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children must
be assessed, including costs for food, clothing,
shelter, education, and medical expenses. The
applicant’s educational and professional
qualifications, as well as their employment
history, play a crucial role in evaluating their
potential for self sufficiency. If the applicant

.....17/-

Judgment

17

432 revn123.23

has any independent source of income or owns
property, this will also be taken into account to
determine if it is sufficient to maintain the
same standard of living experienced during the
marriage. Additionally, the court considers
whether the applicant had to sacrifice
employment opportunities for family
responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring
for elderly family members, which may have
impacted their career prospects.”

¶119

In another decision in Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs.

¶120

Paramvir Parmar, reported in (2011)9 SCR 371, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as that there cannot be a fixed
formula or a straitjacket rubric for fixing the amount of
permanent alimony and only broad principles can be laid
down. The question of maintenance is subjective to each
case and depends on various factors and circumstances as
presented in individual cases. This Court in the above
judgment stated that the courts shall consider the

.....18/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

18

following broad factors while determining permanent
alimony – income and properties of both the parties
respectively, conduct of the parties, status, social and
financial, of the parties, their respective personal needs,
capacity and duty to maintain others dependent on them,
husband’s own expenses, wife’s comfort considering her
status and the mode of life she was used to during the
subsistence of the marriage, among other supplementary
factors.

¶126

In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, elaborating upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasizes that there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount; instead, it should be based on a balanced consideration of various factors. These factors include and

.....19/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

19

are illustrative but are not limited or exhaustive, they are
adumbrated as under:

¶132

i. Status of the parties, social and financial;

¶133

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and
dependent children.

¶134

iii. Qualifications and employment status of
the parties.

¶135

iv. Independent income or assets owned by
the parties.

¶136

v. Maintain standard of living as in the
matrimonial home.

¶137

vi. Any employment sacrifices made for
family responsibilities.

¶138

vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-
working wife.

¶139

viii. Financial capacity of husband, his
income, maintenance obligations, and
liabilities.

.....20/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

20

17. ble In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha supra the Hon’

¶145

Apex Court, while considering the right of the wife to
claim maintenance under various enactments, held that It
is well settled that a wife can make a claim for
maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there
is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or under
H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the

¶146

husband to pay maintenance under each of the
proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a
previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the
wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a
legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent
proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under
another enactment. While deciding the quantum of
maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil
court/family court shall take into account the

.....21/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

21

maintenance awarded in any previously instituted
proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to
the claimant.

¶152

In the light of the above factors, if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, admittedly, learned Judge of the Family Court granted maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- to the applicant/wife and Rs.8,000/- to the applicant/son. In addition to that, as per order of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Akola in Criminal Appeal No.128/2016, the applicant/wife is getting enhanced amount of maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month and the applicant/son is getting @ Rs.3000/- per month.

¶153

Thus, the maintenance granted to the applicants in both proceedings is sufficient to lead the life as per the status of the non-applicant/husband.

.....22/-

Judgment

432 revn123.23

22

20. After balancing all these factors, I have no

¶159

hesitation to hold that sufficient amount of maintenance

¶160

is already granted to the applicants by considering the
income of the non-applicant/husband.

¶161

21. In this view of the matter, the revision being

¶162

devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is

¶163

dismissed.

¶164

Revision stands disposed of .

¶165

( URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. )

¶166

!! BrWankhede !!

¶167

...../-

Pradnya Shrikant Mule and Another v. Shrikant Gabaji Mule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradnya Shrikant Mule and Another v. Shrikant Gabaji Mule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit S/O Subhashchandra Khatri Vs Avenash Prabhu Khambete

Rahul S/O Bhagwan Tapase Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Pso, Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal

Gaurav S/O Gajananrao Ade Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its. P.S.O. P.S. Bela, Dist.Nagpur and Another

Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Company Limited Thr Its Director, Mr, Mukesh Ompralashji Agrawal Vs Madhu Kandunni Nair and Other

Firoz Ahemad Abdul Shamim Shaikh Vs Heena Fatima W/O Firoz Khan

Nirvedh Avinash Deshmukh Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Nandgaon Peth, Dist. Amravati and Another