Bombay High Court
Shri. Dinesh S/O. Wasudeorao Shrirao ... vs Sau. Sonika @ Bhuma Dinesh Shrirao on 8 January, 2019
Author: M.G. Giratkar
Bench: M.G. Giratkar
1 revn85.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 85 OF 2018
1. Shri Dinesh Wasudeorao Shrirao,
aged about 35 years, Occupation
Service;
2. Nirmala Wasudeorao Shrirao,
aged about 51 years, Occupation
Housewife;
3. Rajendra Mahadeorao Shrirao,
aged about 47 years, Occupation
Agriculture (wrongly mentioned in
original application as Raju
Wasudeorao Shrirao).
All R/o Shirkhed, Tah. Morshi,
Distt. Amravati. ... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
Sau. Sonika @ Bhuma Dinesh Shrirao,
aged about 29 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o C/o Wasudeorao M. Godhane,
Vitthal Ward, Arvi, Tahsil Arvi,
District Wardha. ... RESPONDENT
....
Shri V.T. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocte for the respondent sole.
....
CORAM : M.G. GIRATKAR, J.
DATED : 08TH JANUARY, 2019.
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:08:12 :::
2 revn85.18
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri V.T. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Shri Mahesh Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The respondent/wife filed proceedings under D.V. Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arvi, District Wardha. The application for interim maintenance came to be rejected. Appeal was filed before the Sessions Court, Wardha vide PWDV Appeal No. 26 of 2017. The said appeal came to be allowed on 20 th March, 2018. Learned Sessions Judge, Wardha directed the husband (applicant No.1) to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of filing of maintenance application. Hence, the present revision is filed by the husband.
3. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the next day of marriage, the respondent ran away and she was residing with her lover. He has further submitted that the domestic relationship is not proved and, therefore, the order passed by ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:08:12 ::: 3 revn85.18 the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Shri Rai, learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the petition under DV Act filed before the JMFC, Wardha. He has pointed out para 3 of the petition and submitted that, specific submission of the wife in her petition clearly establishes the domestic violence on the part of her husband and relatives. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly granted maintenance.
5. There is no dispute about the marriage/relationship. Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the marriage/ relationship is not established because on the next day of marriage, she ran away. It is for the husband to approach to the appropriate Court. Proceedings under DV Act or 125 of Cr.P.C. are the summary proceedings. All these questions cannot be decided. Moreover, the wild allegations levelled by husband that his wife ran away on the second day of marriage. It is to be proved by cogent evidence before the trial Court. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:08:12 :::
4 revn85.18
6. In the result, the revision is dismissed. All the questions are kept open to the parties to agitate before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings by giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce their respective evidence.
JUDGE *rrg.
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:08:12 :::