Dismissed¶31

Rajendra Janardhan Gaikwad v. Mayadevi @ Madhuri Rajendra Gaikwad

Bombay HC10 Oct 2025REVN/153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC (Aurangabad), Crl. Revn. Appln. No. 153 of 2023, Abhay J. Mantri, J., 10.10.2025 [2025:BHC-AUG:28885]: husband's revision against Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Section 125 CrPC maintenance to wife dismissed; plea of only Rs. 3,991/- pension rejected in view of approx. Rs. 20 lakhs retirement benefits, Rs. 11,450/- p.m. car loan EMI and suppression of facts; able-bodied husband's duty to maintain wife affirmed; arrears payable within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Revision application dismissed with no order as to costs; applicant directed to pay arrears of maintenance to the respondent or deposit them in the Family Court within six weeks, failing which the learned Judge is requested to take appropriate steps. ¶31

Rajendra Janardhan Gaikwad Vs Mayadevi @ Madhuri… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-husband has sufficient means of income to pay the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded to the respondent-wife, notwithstanding his claim that he receives only a pension of Rs. 3991/-. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The applicant has sufficient means of income to pay the maintenance and failed to show that he lacks such means; the Family Court's order is just and proper.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

It is the husband's obligation to maintain his wife; he cannot be permitted to plead inability to maintain her due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

¶26

Key takeaways

Even assuming the applicant gets only a pension of Rs. 3991/-, he is an able-bodied person who can work and pay maintenance to his wife, including from the gratuity and leave encashment amounts.ratio¶25
The applicant suppressed from the Court how he pays a car loan installment of Rs. 11,450/- while claiming a pension of only Rs. 3991/-; on that basis the Family Court held his income to be Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC — Criminal revision by husband against Family Court, Latur order granting wife Rs. 10,000/- per month — Sole ground of challenge: insufficient means, claim of only Rs. 3,991/- pension — Rejected: applicant retired as Assistant Engineer, MSEDCL on 31.08.2021 (after filing of petition), received approximately Rs. 20 lakhs towards gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits, yet paid no lump sum maintenance; pays car loan installment of Rs. 11,450/- per month and suppressed this from the Court — Family Court's assessment of income at Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month upheld — Employment as Assistant Engineer admitted in say/reply and evidence — Husband duty-bound to maintain wife; cannot plead financial inability while capable of earning — Even assuming the pension figure, able-bodied applicant can pay maintenance, including from gratuity/leave encashment — Judicially noticed rise in prices; maintenance observed to be too meagre, but not enhanced — No illegality or perversity found; revision dismissed, no costs; arrears to be paid or deposited in Family Court within six weeks.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:28885

¶2

910-REVN-153-23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2023

¶5

Rajendra Janardhan Gaikwad ..APPLICANT VERSUS

¶6

Mayadevi @ Madhuri Rajendra Gaikwad ..RESPONDENT

¶7

Mr. M.D. Gite, Advocate for the applicant Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for the respondent

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 10^th OCTOBER, 2025

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶10

The applicant has preferred this revision application challenging the judgment and order dated 11^th April, 2023, passed by a learned Judge of Family Court, Latur, in Petition No. E-67 of 2020, whereby maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month was granted to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the record.

¶12

At the outset, it appears that the respondent, being the wife of the applicant, filed the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant. The applicant appeared in the matter and resisted the claim. However, after considering the evidence on record, the

¶13

1 / 5

¶14

910-REVN-153-23.odt

¶15

learned Judge held that the applicant is an able-bodied person and liable to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent and accordingly passed the impugned order.

¶16

It is pertinent to note that the applicant is not disputing his relationship with the respondent. The respondent is residing separately, and he is not providing her with a maintenance amount.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant challenged the impugned order only on the ground that he does not have sufficient means of income. He is getting only Rs. 3991/- pension. However, the learned Family Court has not considered the said fact in its proper perspective and erred in awarding the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He further pointed out paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the learned Judge, though he has observed that the applicant is receiving a pension of Rs. 3991/-, granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent, and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraph nos. 32 to 35 is contrary to the evidence on record and, thus, not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Hence, he urged the modification of the order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously argued that the applicant was playing tactics as he sent a false telegram stating that the applicant has died. He has also drawn my attention to the pension papers and submitted that the applicant has received approximately Rs. 20 lakhs from gratuity and leave encashment benefit. He also brought my

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

910-REVN-153-23.odt

¶20

attention to the observations made in paragraph nos. 31 to 35 in the impugned judgment, wherein the learned Judge has considered the pension papers as well as the loan obtained by the applicant, and after considering the same, held that the applicant is an able-bodied person and liable to pay maintenance to the respondent.

¶21

At the outset, the applicant appeared to be serving in the MSEDCL as an Assistant Engineer. He retired on 31^st August 2021, i.e. after filing the application. It also seems that he received approximately Rs. 20 lakhs towards gratuity, leave encashment benefit, and other benefits. However, he has not paid the lump sum amount of maintenance from the said amount to the applicant. He could have paid the respondent part of the amount as a lump sum maintenance. He did not pay the respondent any amount. Similarly, it has been brought to the record that the applicant possesses a car and he has obtained a loan for that and is paying the installment of Rs. 11,450/-, therefore, it cannot be said that he is getting a pension of Rs. 3991/-. Had it been the fact that he is getting a pension of only Rs. 3,991/-, then from where is he paying the said car loan instalment? He does not explain it. It is incumbent on him to come before the Court with clean hands and show how he is paying the loan installment. But he has suppressed the fact from the Court, and therefore, the learned Family Court has held that the applicant is getting income of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month and accordingly awarded the maintenance.

¶22

3 / 5

¶23

910-REVN-153-23.odt

¶24

It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 15 of the petition, the petitioner – wife has stated that the applicant is working as Assistant Engineer with MSEDCL and the said fact is admitted by the applicant in his say/reply as well as in his evidence, and therefore, I do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not working as Assistant Engineer with MSEDCL.

¶25

Even assuming that the applicant is getting a pension of Rs. 3991/-, it is not in dispute that he is an able-bodied person who can do the work and pay the maintenance to his wife. He can also pay the maintenance from the gratuity and leave the encashment amount to the respondent.

¶26

It is pertinent to note that it is the husband's obligation to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain her due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. It is to be noted that the husband has to fulfil the day-to-day needs of his wife; he is duty-bound to provide a maintenance amount to her to live her life as per his status. In such an eventuality, it is necessary to grant maintenance to her. As observed above, the applicant has sufficient means to earn the money. Besides, judicial notes can be taken that there is a rise in the prices of essential commodities. Therefore, the maintenance amount granted to the respondent also appears to be too meagre to satisfy her daily needs.

¶27

The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant has sufficient means of income to pay the maintenance to the respondents. On

¶28

4 / 5

¶29

910-REVN-153-23.odt

¶30

the other hand, the applicant failed to show that he does not have sufficient means of income to maintain the respondent. As such, it appears that the order passed by the learned Judge is just and proper. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order to interfere in it in the revisional jurisdiction.

¶31

As a result, the revision application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶32

The applicant is directed to pay arrears of maintenance amount to the respondent or deposit in the Family Court within six weeks, failing which the learned Judge is requested to take appropriate steps to comply with this order.

¶33

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶34

SSD

¶35

5 / 5

Rajendra Janardhan Gaikwad v. Mayadevi @ Madhuri Rajendra Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Janardhan Gaikwad v. Mayadevi @ Madhuri Rajendra Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Vinod Pujari vs State of Maharashtra

Jayashree Ravindra Rathod and Anr. Vs Ravindra Ramu Rathod

Farhin W/O. Sumer Tamboli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sou Ishwari Wo Krushna Ithape @ Ishwari Santosh Rajale vs Krushna Kalyan Ithape

Sanjaykumar Sadashiv Gharat Vs Sulekha Alias Shahabai Sanjay Gharat and Another

Shaikh Irfan Moin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another