Dismissed¶47

Manohar Hiralal Rathod v. Sau. Sunita Manohar Rathod and Another

Bombay HC11 Jun 2026REVN/131/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 456 days; Section 125 CrPC maintenance; Family Court Yavatmal order dated 03/03/2023; matrimonial dispute; unemployed husband duty bound to maintain wife and son; Rs.2,500 per month each, total Rs.5,000; husband's claim of Rs.2,000 monthly income disbelieved; revision application rejected; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; M.M. Nerlikar, J.; decision dated 11-06-2026; registered as Criminal Revision Application 131/2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 456 days condoned and revision application directed to be registered; revision application on merits rejected; fees of the appointed counsel to be quantified and paid as per rules. ¶47

Manohar Hiralal Rathod vs Sau. Sunita Manohar Rathod… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 456 days condoned and revision application directed to be registered; revision application on merits rejected; fees of the appointed counsel to be quantified and paid as per rules.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 456 days in filing the criminal revision application should be condoned. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Poor financial condition and being unaware of the legal proceedings are not grounds to condone delay, but considering that the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute, the delay is condoned in the interest of justice.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 456 days in filing the revision application is condoned and the office is directed to register the revision application.

¶29

Key takeaways

No perversity is found in the judgment and order dated 03/03/2023; the reasons assigned by the trial Court do not require interference and the revision application is rejected.ratio¶47
Rs.2,500/- per month is not exorbitant; even if a person is unemployed, he is duty bound to maintain his wife and son and cannot take the defence that he is unemployed or earning nothing.ratio¶47
The husband's evidence that he earns Rs.2,000/- per month by doing a private job is held to be an absolutely frivolous statement, and therefore his version cannot be believed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (M.M. Nerlikar, J.) condoned a delay of 456 days in filing a criminal revision against the Family Court, Yavatmal judgment and order dated 03/03/2023, which had allowed the wife's petition under Section 125 CrPC and granted maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month each to the wife and the minor son (total Rs.5,000/-) from 26/09/2018. The Court held that although poor financial condition and unawareness of legal proceedings are not grounds for condonation of delay, the delay was condoned in the interest of justice since the proceedings arose out of a matrimonial dispute. On merits, the Court found no perversity in the trial court's reasoning, held that even an unemployed person is duty bound to maintain his wife and son and that Rs.2,500/- per month is not exorbitant, disbelieved the husband's claim of earning Rs.2,000/- per month as an absolutely frivolous statement, and rejected the revision application. Fees of the appointed counsel for the non-applicants were directed to be quantified and paid as per rules.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:7608

¶2

¶3

46-Cr.APPR-200-2024

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPR] NO. 200 OF 2024 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION [STAMP] NO. 7991 OF 2024

¶7

Manohar Giralal Rathod

¶8

-- VERSUS --

¶9

Sau. Sunita Manohar Rathod and Another

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶11

and Registrar's Orders.

¶12

Mr. Abhishek Zade, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶13

Ms. Mrunalini Suple, Advocate (appointed) for the Nonapplicants.

¶14

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : JUNE 11, 2026.

¶15

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPR] NO. 200/2024:-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶17

applicant.

¶18

The matter is pending since 2024 for adjudication on the application for condonation of delay. It further appears from the office report that, the non-applicants were duly served, however, none appeared for the non-applicants, and therefore, I am of the opinion that, the purpose would be served if the Advocate is appointed to represent her.

¶19

Piyush Mahajan

¶20

2 46-Cr.APPR-200-2024

¶21

Accordingly, Ms. Mrunalini Suple, Advocate is appointed to represent the nonapplicants.

¶22

I have heard both the sides on the delay application. The application was filed for condoning the delay of 456 days caused in filing the revision application.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to poor financial condition, he was not able to approach this Court within time. He further submits that, applicant was not aware about the legal proceedings, and therefore, there was delay in filing the application. In the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned, since the applicant is having good case on merits.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants vehemently opposes the application and submits that there is no cogent explanation and sufficient cause enumerated in the delay condonation application. She further submits that, merely poor financial condition is no ground to condone the delay and further it cannot be said that the applicant is not knowing about the legal proceedings, and therefore, she submits that delay may not be condoned.

Piyush Mahajan

46-Cr.APPR-200-2024

I have considered the rival submissions. It is true that poor financial condition and being unaware of the legal proceedings are no grounds to condone the delay, however, considering the dispute between the parties, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to condone the delay, since the proceedings are arising out of matrimonial dispute.

¶29

Accordingly, the delay of 456 days caused in filing the revision application is condoned. The office is directed to register the revision application.

¶30

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 131/2026 :-

¶31

I have heard the revision application.

¶32

The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 03/03/2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal, wherein, the proceedings filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the wife and his son aged about 8 years has been allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month each, total amounting to Rs.5,000/- from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 26/09/2018.

¶33

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the income of the applicant wherein in the written statement and in the evidence, he has

Piyush Mahajan

46-Cr.APPR-200-2024

specifically stated that, he is earning Rs.2,000/- per month by doing private job. The Court ought not to have granted Rs.5,000/- maintenance amount in total to the wife and child. He further submits that, the wife of the applicant has voluntarily left the matrimonial house which fact has been duly proved by the applicant by leading evidence and under such circumstances maintenance cannot be granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is the wife who had deserted the applicant and she cohabited with him only for three and half months. In view of the same, the applicant was required to file petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He further submits that, the wife has initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, however, in those proceedings, it was held that, no cruelty was meted out by the applicant and his relatives and they were acquitted of the said offences, and therefore, considering all these facts, the wife does not deserve to be granted any maintenance.

¶38

On the other hand, the learned appointed counsel appearing for the non-applicants submitted that, it is not in dispute that the nonapplicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant. The applicant has not made any provision in respect of the maintenance of the wife and son.

Piyush Mahajan

46-Cr.APPR-200-2024

Though the interim maintenance was granted, however, not a single penny has been paid by the applicant, and under such circumstances, the maintenance granted by the trial Court is justified. She further submits that, the evidence shows that it is the applicant who has dragged her out of house and she was constrained to live at her parental home.

¶43

I have heard both the sides. I have gone through the evidence as well as the impugned judgment and order. The marriage was solemnized on 18/05/2010. As was alleged that after one month of marriage, the husband and his family members started harassing her mentally and physically and demanded Rs.50,000/-. Due to continuous harassment at the hands of the husband and his relatives, the father of the non-applicant No.1 brought her to his house. It further appears that, several attempts were made to resume cohabitation from the side of the wife, however, no fruitful purpose was served. Therefore, the wife was constrained to file the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It further appears from the record that, after leading evidence by both the sides, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the wife has proved the case and it was held that the husband has neglected to maintain his wife and son, and therefore, the trial Court granted Rs.2,500/- per month each, total

¶44

Piyush Mahajan

¶45

6 46-Cr.APPR-200-2024

¶46

amount of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance for wife and child from the date of filing of the petition.

¶47

After going through the reasoning based on the evidence, I do not find any perversity in the judgment and order dated 03/03/2023. Rs.2,500/- is not exorbitant, even, if a person is unemployed, he is duty bound to maintain his wife and son, he cannot take a defense that he is unemployed or he is not earning anything. The evidence which was led by the husband goes to show that he is earning Rs.2,000/by doing private job, which I believe is absolutely frivolous statement. Therefore, the version of the husband cannot be believed. In this view of the matter, the reasons assigned by the trial Court does not require any interference and hence the revision application is rejected . The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per rules.

¶48

[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ]

¶49

Piyush Mahajan

Manohar Hiralal Rathod v. Sau. Sunita Manohar Rathod and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Hiralal Rathod v. Sau. Sunita Manohar Rathod and Another

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

Gautam Jyotiramji Awale vs State of Maharashtra through Senior Police Inspector and Others.

Manav S/O Dipakrao Sugandhe vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Paratwada, Dist. Amravati and Anr.

Raju Ramchandra Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Jaulka

Bharat Madhukar Wankhede vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Malkapur

Munshi S/O Karim Shah vs State of Maharashtra Thr Ps Wardha (City) Tq. and Dist. Wardha and Anr.

Sunday Udogadi Ihekaigbo vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence