| |
CDJ 2026 BHC 2144
|
| Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur |
| Case No : CR. Writ Petition No. 715 of 2006 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE |
| Parties : Shivaji Dnyanu Holkar Versus Muktabai Shivaji Holkar & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Machhandra Patil i/b. Vijay Garad, Advocates. For the Respondents: R2, Nitin B. Patil, A.P.P., R1, B.A. Lawate, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 20-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-KOL 7851,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”)
- Order dated 9th January 2006 passed by the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur
- Order dated 5th February 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangola
- Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2005
- Criminal M.A. No. 81 of 2001
- Rule issued on 30th August 2007
2. Catch Words:
- maintenance
- Section 125
- criminal revision
- arrears
3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged the maintenance award of Rs. 500 per month granted to his wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging it to be exorbitant. The magistrate had originally ordered the maintenance and later enhanced it, which the petitioner failed to pay, leading to arrears. The revisional court upheld the magistrate’s order, and the petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 seeking its reversal. The High Court observed that the petitioner’s contention undermines the purpose of Section 125, which is to prevent destitution of a wife unable to maintain herself. Finding no merit in the petition and noting the petitioner’s non‑compliance, the Court dismissed the petition without imposing costs.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Oral Judgement:
1. Heard Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. B.A. Lawate, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nitin Patil, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2-State.
2. By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is assailing the Order dated 9th January 2006 passed by the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur (“Revisional Court”), in Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2005, by which the Sessions Court has maintained the Order dated 5th February 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangola (“Magistrate”), in Criminal M.A. No. 81 of 2001 directing the Petitioner to pay the maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) @ Rs.500/- per month to the Respondent No. 1, wife, from the date of filing of the said application.
3. Rule was issued on 30th August 2007.
4. Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the Revisional Court failed to consider that the amount of Rs.500/- per month ordered by the Magistrate as maintenance allowance to Respondent No.1 is exorbitant.
5. Mr. B. A. Lawate, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, submits that Respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and therefore requires maintenance for her sustenance. He submits that the Magistrate, on the subsequent Application filed by Respondent No. 1, enhanced the maintenance amount. He submits that the Petitioner has not complied with the order passed by the Magistrate, has defaulted in payment and is in arrears.
6. Perused the records.
7. Apparently, the Petitioner failed to fulfill his filial duty by providing financial support to the Respondent No. 1 – wife, who being unable to maintain herself, was compelled to knock at the doors of the Court of the Magistrate to enforce her right under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. The Magistrate exercised discretion in favour of the Respondent No. 1 by granting maintenance allowance. The Petitioner drew the Respondent No. 1 before the Revisional Court. Unsuccessful in Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2005, the Petitioner brings Respondent No. 1 before this Court, challenging the maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground that the said quantum is exorbitant. To add to the woes of financial hardship of the Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner defaults in making payment as per the Order dated 5th February 2005 passed by the Magistrate.
8. The conduct and approach of the Petitioner, including challenging the maintenance amount of a paltry Rs. 500/- per month, give an impression that the Petitioner harbours the view that the right to maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a benefit received by the wife, ignoring that it is a legal and moral duty owed by the husband to his wife.
9. The contention of Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, that the amount of Rs.500/- per month is excessive, is liable to be taken note of for the limited purpose of rejecting it. The said contention of the Petitioner defeats the very object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which is to prevent destitution and ensure dignity of the wife who is unable to maintain herself.
10. Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in this Petition. The Order dated 9th January 2006 passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2005 is well reasoned.
11. This Petition is devoid of merits, as such dismissed. Rule discharged.
12. Though I was leaning towards imposing costs, I do not impose costs on the persuasion of Mr. Machhandra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner.
13. Writ Petition No. 715 of 2006 is disposed of.
|
| |
