Bombay High Court
Seema W/O. Akash Beedkar And Another vs Akash Anand Beedkar on 18 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7103
-1-
REVN-119-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.119 OF 2021
1. Seema W/o. Akash Beedkar,
Age : 38 years, Occu. : Nil,
2. Vansh S/o. Akash Beedkar,
Age : 7 years, Occu. : Education,
U/g. of real Mother i.e. Petitioner No.1.
Both R/o. At present C/o. Ishwarlal Wadhwa,
Near Universal Public School, Hingoli Gate,
Sindhi Colony, Purusharthnagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. .... Petitioners
[Orig. Petitioners]
Versus
Akash S/o. Anand Beedkar,
Age : 39 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Kanchan Nagar, Paithan Road,
Nakshatrawadi, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. .... Respondent
[Orig. Respondent]
......
Mr. Bharat N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Shantanu A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 18 FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. Original Petitioners, who instituted proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Nanded in Petition No. E 151 of 2017, are dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed on 29.07.2021.
-2-
REVN-119-2021
2. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would point out that, present revisionist are wife and son of respondent, with whom revision petitioner no.1 performed marriage on 09.01.2008. That, it was love marriage. That, out of said marriage, petitioner no.2 was born on 24.07.2014. That, due to strained relations, husband filed divorce proceedings and he succeeded in obtaining ex parte order. Learned counsel pointed out that, here, cruelty was proved. However, the proceedings of divorce instituted by husband were taken into account while refusing monthly maintenance. That, moreover, according to him, before the Family Court instead of granting monthly maintenance, lump-sum maintenance has been granted, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Therefore, he questions the impugned order and urges to allow the revision application.
3. Learned counsel for respondent would support the judgment and order of learned trial court by pointing to the provision to Sub section 2A of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came by way of amendment. Therefore, it is justified that, as there was discretion of the trial court to grant monthly maintenance or, in view of that, a lump-sum amount, the same has been correctly appreciated by learned trial court. Moreover, according to him, he had already succeeded in getting -3- REVN-119-2021 divorce, and therefore, for all above reasons, he supported the judgment and order of learned Family Court and prays to dismiss the revision for want of merits.
4. Precisely present revision petitioners, who are wife and son of respondent, seems to have been instituted Petition No. E 151 of 2017 by invoking section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She has alleged that, she was deserted and, moreover, neglected to be maintained.
5. While resisting the above claim, present respondent though seems to have not initially denied marriage, his case is that, marriage relations between them are resolved by virtue of Petition No.A-268 of 2017 and he has succeeded in getting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He has also placed on record a copy of order dated 05.08.2019.
6. Learned Family Court, Nanded, after appreciating the respective contentions, allowed the petition by passing impugned order. The operative part of the said order is as under :
"1. This petition is allowed.
2. The respondent shall pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) in lumpsum to the petitioner No.1 and -4- REVN-119-2021 Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) in lumpsum to petitioner no.2 towards their maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. within one month from the date of this order.
3. Out of Rs.8,00,000/- allowed to petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1 shall keep Rs.5,00,000/- in fixed deposit till he completes 18 years of his age.
4. The respondent shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this application to the petitioners."
7. From the impugned order, it is clear that, learned Family Court has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- in lump-sum to petitioner no.1 and Rs.8,00,000/- in lump-sum to petitioner no.2 towards maintenance till he attained the age of majority.
8. Learned counsel for respondent has relied on Sub section 2A of section 125 of Cr.P.C., which came by way of amendment, for ready reference, the same is reproduced as under :
"(2-A) Notwithstanding anything otherwise contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), where an application is made by the wife under clause (a) of sub-section (1) for maintenance allowance, the applicant may also seek relief that the order may be made for the payment of maintenance allowance in lumpsum in lieu of the payment of monthly maintenance allowance, and the Magistrate may, after taking into consideration all the circumstances obtaining in the case including the -5- REVN-119-2021 factors like the age, physical condition, economic conditions and other liabilities and commitments of both the parties, pass an order that the respondent shall pay the maintenance allowance in lumpsum in lieu of the monthly maintenance allowance, covering a specified period, not exceeding five years at a time, or for such period which may exceed five years, as may be mutually agreed to, by the parties."
9. Therefore, on a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that, courts are bestowed with the discretion to grant either monthly maintenance or a lump-sum amount. Therefore, in the light of such wording in the provision, no fault can be found in the order of learned trial court.
As regards to second submission of learned counsel that, learned Family Court took recourse to the judgment and observations in a case of divorce obtained by husband, there is no bar to the consideration of said submission. Therefore, there being no perversity or illegality and there being no merits, the revision application deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :
ORDER The Revision Application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale