Dismissed¶17

Vishnu Maroti Rathod v. Vimal Vishnu Rathod

Bombay HC10 Jul 2025WP/5/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Aurangabad, Crim. W.P. No. 5/2020 (decided 10-07-2025, Kishore C. Sant, J.) — dismissal of writ petition against confirmation of PWDVA order: house rent Rs.1,500 (S.19), maintenance Rs.3,000 p.m. (S.20), compensation Rs.1 lakh (S.22); no illegality or perversity found in CJM Aurangabad (PWDVA No.180/2016, 13-06-2017) and Additional Sessions Judge (Crim. (PWDVA) Appeal No.82/2018, 18-04-2019) orders; husband's income assessed at Rs.25,000–30,000 p.m.; petitioner absent/unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the learned trial Judge and the learned Sessions Judge; there is no merit in the writ petition, which stands dismissed and disposed off. ¶17

Vishnu Maroti Rathod Vs Vimal Vishnu Rathod — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 1 ) 10-WP-5-2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

10 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2020

¶4

Vishnu Maroti Rathod VERSUS

¶5

Vimal Vishnu Rathod

¶6

None for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 10^th JULY 2025.

¶8

PC :-

¶9

This petition is filed in 2020. It appeared on the board for the first time on 8^th May 2025, and none was present. Thereafter, it was on board on 9^th June 2025. The learned Advocate for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has taken back the papers from him, alongwith no objection, long back, and thereafter, there is no contact with his client. This Court, therefore, adjourned the matter to today.

¶10

A challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order dated 18^th April 2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶11

Ethape

¶12

Aurangabad, in Criminal (PWDVA) Appeal No.82 of 2018. This appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13^th June 2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in PWDVA No.180 of 2016.

¶13

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had allowed the domestic violence petition filed by the respondent-wife. The petitioner was directed not to commit any act of domestic violence and not to prevent the wife from staying in the house. Under Section 19, he was directed to pay Rs.1,500/- towards house rent. Rs.3000/- per months was awarded under Section 20 towards maintenance, and under Section 22, he was directed to pay Rs. 1 lakhs towards compensation. In the appeal, the said order came to be confirmed, and the appeal came to be dismissed with costs.

¶14

By looking to the judgment of the Appellate Court, it is seen that the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence of the complainant at Exhibit-7. In the trial Court, the income of the husband

¶15

Ethape

¶16

was considered. The husband did not appear in the trial Court, and the judgment was delivered in his absence. From the evidence produced by the wife, the Court arrived at conclusion that the husband, who happens to be a teacher, must be earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- towards salary. There are also documents showing that the husband is having agricultural land. The crop like, cotton, soybean etc. are taken from the said agricultural land. Considering that, the amount of maintenance was determined.

¶17

This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and the learned Sessions Judge. There is no merit in the writ petition, and therefore, the Writ petition stands dismissed and disposed off.

¶18

[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

¶19

Ethape

Vishnu Maroti Rathod v. Vimal Vishnu Rathod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Maroti Rathod v. Vimal Vishnu Rathod

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

Gangubai Chimaji Shinde (Died) Thr. Lrs Bayanbai Shivaji Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector Jalna and Ors.

Nandkumar Dnyandev Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Imran Sattar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwanath Govind Gurle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kunal Vinod Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujit Punamchand Kahate Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Others