Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.
Manoj Kaluramji Jamankar – Applicant.
versus
Lalita – Non-applicant.
Criminal Revision Application No.183 of 2024
Decided on 10.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant: Shri V.N. Mate,
For the Non-applicant: Shri B.V. Gupta
IMPORTANT POINT
Award of maintenance to wife – Refusal or neglect on part of husband may be proved not only by express words, but also by his conduct – Torture or ill-treatment in husband’s house would be sufficient for refusal by wife-claimant to live with her husband, even though husband may not be guilty personally.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144] – Award of maintenance to wife – Object of Section 125 of CrPC is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy, and to serve a social purpose apart from independent obligation of parties under their personal law – Since object is to prevent vagrancy or destitution by means of summary remedy before Magistrate, jurisdiction is preventive rather than remedial or punitive – Refusal or neglect on part of husband may be proved not only by express words, but also by his conduct – Torture or ill-treatment in husband’s house would be sufficient for refusal by wife-claimant to live with her husband, even though husband may not be guilty personally – There is nothing on record to show that she is earning for her livelihood – Grant of maintenance by Family Court appears to be just and reasonable one. (Paras 15, 16 and 20)
Result: Criminal Revision Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
2. By this revision, the applicant (the husband) has challenged judgment and order of the Family Court at Nagpur granting maintenance to the non-applicant (the wife) @ Rs.5000/- from 14.1.2017 to 31.12.2020 and Rs.6000/- from 1.1.2021 to 31.8.2024 and Rs.7000/- from 1.9.2024 onward in petition No.8/2017 dated 12.9.2024.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision are as under:
The marriage of the husband and the wife was performed on 16.4.2012. After the marriage, the wife resumed cohabitation at the house of the husband. As per the allegations of the wife, on the day, when she resumed cohabitation, family members of the husband raised quarrel with her on the ground that less dowry was given and, thereafter, she was subjected for physical and mental harassment. She has specifically narrated incident dated 4.6.2024 on which day she was assaulted by the husband by means of Waist Belt and, therefore, she rushed to the police station. The police sent her to the Women Cell and, thereafter, the husband and his father raised quarrel with her. Though many efforts are taken by her and her family members for resolving the dispute, there was no response from the husband or his family members and, therefore, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house and she took shelter at her parental house.
It is further contended by her that the husband is serving as “Gangman” in Railway Department and is drawing salary of Rs.25000/-. She has no income as the husband has refused and neglected to maintain her. She is unable to maintain herself. The husband has also not made any provision for her livelihood and, therefore, she was constrained to file an application for grant of maintenance in the Family Court at Nagpur.
4. The said application is strongly opposed by the husband on the ground that it was the wife who has left the matrimonial house without sufficient and reasonable cause and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. It is further contended that the fact, that the wife has filed a petition seeking divorce, itself is sufficient to show that she is not willing to cohabit with him and thereby she is not entitled for any maintenance.
5. The Family Court has recorded evidence of both sides and after appreciating the evidence, came to conclusion that there was a refusal and neglect on the part of the husband and thereby granted maintenance as the aforestated.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present revision is filed on the ground that the wife has not proved the refusal/neglect on the part of the husband. The divorce petition was decided ex parte and as there is no refusal/neglect on his part, she is not entitled for any maintenance and, therefore, the revision application deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of maintenance amount.
7. Learned counsel for the husband reiterated the contentions and invited my attention towards the evidence on record. He submitted that the affidavit of examination-inchief itself shows that it was the wife who has left the matrimonial house on 4.6.2014 as she eloped from the house which is sufficient to show that there was no refusal/neglect on the part of the husband and, therefore, the wife is not entitled for the maintenance.
He has also invited my attention towards the fact that the wife has filed the divorce petition which was disposed of by the Family Court ex parte. Thus, he submitted that the conduct of filing the divorce petition itself is sufficient to show that she is not willing to perform her matrimonial duties and, therefore, she left the house and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the wife submitted supported the judgment of the Family Court and submitted that the decree of divorce is not challenged by the husband in any proceeding. He further submitted that the evidence of the wife shows that she was assaulted physically b
