Dismissed¶¶27

Vivekanand S/O. Babruwan Birajdar v. Ratnamala W/O. Vivekanand Birajdar and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2025WP/399/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vivekanand Birajdar v. Ratnamala Birajdar, Criminal Writ Petition No. 399 of 2019, Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Kishore C. Sant, J.: writ petition against concurrent maintenance orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Rs. 5,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to daughter upheld; husband's second marriage admitted in cross-examination treated as indicating sound financial position; contention that maintenance amount was exorbitant and income hypothetically considered rejected for want of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Though vehemently argued, there is nothing to indicate that the findings recorded by the learned JMFC, Latur or the learned Sessions Judge are without sufficient record. ¶¶26

Vivekanand S/O. Babruwan Birajdar Vs Ratnamala W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:18559

¶2

(1)

¶3

36criwp399.19

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

36 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2019

¶6

VIVEKANAND S/O. BABRUWAN BIRAJDAR

¶7

….Petitioner VERSUS

¶8

RATNAMALA W/O. VIVEKANAND BIRAJDAR AND ANR …..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

P. C.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

2. Petitioner has challenged an order passed by the

¶13

learned Sessions Judge, Latur dated 22-03-2018 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 9/2015. By way of impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the revision. In the revision an order passed by the learned JMFC was challenged. The learned JMFC, Latur by order dated 03-01-2015 had allowed the Cri. Misc. Application No.

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

(2) 36criwp399.19

¶16

255/2011 of the respondent. The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- per months towards maintenance to respondent No.1-wife. He is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- per month towards maintenance of respondent No.2daughter.

¶17

The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance. It is the case that without any sufficient cause the petitioner has refused and neglected to maintain the wife and daughter. The petitioner is having irrigated agriculture land and he works in the company at Pune on salary of Rs.15000/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that wife was not behaving properly. She is suffering from mental disease. She had even tried to commit suicide. Because of the wife, he is required to pay much amount on her treatment. Presently he is not having job. The wife is also earning by doing business of tailoring and jewelry. She also earns Rs.10 to 15 thousand per month. He denied that he has refused and neglected to maintain the wife and daughter

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

(3) 36criwp399.19

¶20

without any sufficient cause. The learned JMFC on considering the evidence, observed that the husband has performed second marriage and the said fact is accepted by him in the crossexamination. He thus, inferred that performing the second marriage itself is sufficient to conclude that the husband is neglecting to maintain wife and daughter. There is no evidence produced by the husband to show that the wife is suffering from mental disease. Making such allegations, itself would be cruelty.

¶21

Considering all aspect the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by the learned JMFC, Latur.

¶22

The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the courts have failed to appreciate that the wife is residing with her parents because of her mental illness. The wife has not specifically brought on record the income of the husband. The wife, in her cross-examination admitted that though there is agricultural land, it is of joint family. She could not produce satisfactory evidence to show the income from the

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

(4) 36criwp399.19

¶25

agriculture land. He further submits that in any case the amount awarded is exorbitant. The court has only hypothetically considered the income of the husband, when there is no sufficient evidence on record to show the income.

¶26

Considering the argument, this court finds that though it is vehemently argued, however, there is nothing to indicate that findings recorded by the learned JMFC, Latur or the learned Sessions Judge is without sufficient record. To show the income of the wife, no evidence is produced on record except the affidavit of the husband. From the cross of the husband, the court has recorded that he has married to another lady. This itself shows that he is having sound position.

¶27

Considering all above, no case is made out calling for any interference in the impugned judgment and order dated 2203-2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the order dated 03-01-2015 passed by the learned JMFC, Latur. Consequently, the criminal writ petition stands dismissed.

¶28

[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

¶29

VishalK/36criwp399.19

¶30

4 of 4

Vivekanand S/O. Babruwan Birajdar v. Ratnamala W/O. Vivekanand Birajdar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivekanand S/O. Babruwan Birajdar v. Ratnamala W/O. Vivekanand Birajdar and Anr.

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

Harshal Chandrakant Patil Vs Bhushan Giridhar Patil

Sustainable Agro Commercial Finance Limited through Is Legal Officer Maruti Tukaram Agavane Vs Dadasaheb Ashok Bhagure and Another

Vatsalabai Narayan Sonar (Died) Thr. Lrs Gajanan Narayan Sonar and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acq. Officer U.T.P.H. 1 and Anr.

Leelabai Ratan Lokhande and Others Vs Sunita Ashok Lokhande and Others

Ashwini Saudagar Adsule and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shrisarang Gajanan Kharat through His Father Gajanan Udhavrao Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another