Bombay High Court
Mahesh Pralhadrao Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 September, 2020
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
1 7.177.2020 cra.doc
ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2020
Mahesh Pralhadrao Sonawane ....Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and others .....Respondents
Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Applicant
Smt. M. H. Mhatre APP for the State
Digitally signed
Bharat by Bharat D.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Pandit D. Date:
2020.09.07 Pandit 16:11:36 +0530 DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2020.
P.C.:
This Revision Application is by husband questioning the order impugned dated 28/01/2020 whereby maintenance of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/- respectively are awarded in favour of wife and son. 2] The facts necessary for deciding the Application are as under:
2 7.177.2020 cra.doc
(i) It is claimed by the respondent-wife that she married applicant on 01/07/2009 and out of the wedlock, son is born. It is further claimed that there was matrimonial discord sometime in 2013-2014 resulting in initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) According to respondent no. 2-wife since there was neglect to maintain on the part of applicant-husband, she has initiated criminal proceedings. Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class awarded maintenance of Rs. 1500/- on 08/12/2016. However, subsequently in further proceedings initiated before the Family Court, maintenance of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/- are awarded in exercise of powers under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3] Submission of learned counsel for the applicant Shri. Aniket Vagal is, applicant was not properly advised before the court below 3 7.177.2020 cra.doc resulting into proceedings were not properly conducted as the applicant was unable to put his written statement on record. According to him, even he was not advised on the issue of adducing evidence and that being so, great prejudice is caused to him. 4] With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused the Rozanama of the proceedings maintained before the Family Court. Applicant frequently remained absent before the Family Court. 5] Apart from above, award of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/- respectively to wife and son are based on income refected in salary slip of applicant i.e. Exhibit 15 which demonstrate that applicant was drawing salary of Rs. 18,611/- per month as on January 2019.
6] In the aforesaid background, order of Award of maintenance cannot be termed to be exorbitant or disproportionate to the known source of income of the applicant. So also neglect to maintain can 4 7.177.2020 cra.doc also be noted from the pleadings of the parties. 7] That being so, no case for interference is made out. Application fails, same is rejected.
8] It is made clear that the aforesaid observations will not come in the way of the applicant for moving before the Court below under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for modifcation provided circumstances so exist.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]