Vishwanath Madhav Mokal Vs Bharti Vishwanath Mokal and Others

The petitioner, being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order dated 18^th November, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2015, whereby confirmed the judgment and order dated 09^th October, 2015 passed by the learned 1 / 3

¶18

911-CRWP-646-25.odt

¶19

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon (for short, ‘ the Magistrate ’) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2014, thereby granting total maintenance of Rs.1,900/- to the respondents, has preferred this petition.

¶20

Heard learned counsel Mr. A.N. Barhate Patil for the petitioner. Perused the impugned judgments and orders, as well as the record.

¶21

At the outset, it appears that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘ Cr.P.C. ’) before the learned Magistrate for grant of maintenance, who, after considering the evidence and material on record, partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to Respondent No.1, Rs.400/- to Respondent No.2, Rs.300/- to Respondent No.3 and Rs. 200/- to Respondent No.4.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred revision before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Court, after considering the evidence and material on record, confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate, holding that no error was committed by the learned Magistrate, and dismissed the revision. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶23

On perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, it clearly appears that the petitioner does not dispute his relationship with the respondents, and they are residing separately. The petitioner failed to provide them with the maintenance. In paragraph 13, the learned Magistrate has held

¶24

2 / 3

¶25

911-CRWP-646-25.odt

¶26

that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves and, therefore, are entitled to maintenance. Similarly, in paragraph no.14, it is observed that the petitioner has admitted that he has received the salary of Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/-, and therefore, considering the same, the learned Magistrate awarded total maintenance of Rs. 1,900/-, including three children and the wife (i.e. less than 40%). Passing of the said order is just and proper, and therefore, I do not find any illegality in the said order.

¶27

Similarly, the learned Sessions Court in paragraph nos. 8 to 10 has dealt with the same and held that passing of the order by the learned Magistrate is just and proper and no error has been committed by the learned Magistrate, and therefore, confirmed the said order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the learned Magistrate's and the Sessions Court's orders are illegal or perverse. On the contrary, it appears that the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below are just and proper. As such, no interference is required in them in the writ jurisdiction.

¶28

Thus, it appears that there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs. Inform the order to the learned Courts below accordingly.

¶29

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶30

SSD

¶31

3 / 3

Vishwanath Madhav Mokal v. Bharti Vishwanath Mokal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Madhav Mokal v. Bharti Vishwanath Mokal and Others

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

Vanita Satish Sanap vs Satish Madhukar Sanap

Manohar Walmik Patil Vs Priyanka Manohar Patil and Another

Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Gani Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Vijay Solanke and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Director of Health Service (Transport) Pune

Shivam Rajeshlal Gurkhude and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

Nadim Khan Noor Khan vs the State of Maharashtra and Another