Advocates:
['KENDRE N D', 'SHINDE MANOJ D', '', 'FOR R/SOLE']

(1)

crirevapln145.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

919 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2018

Anil S/o. Machindra Waghmare,

...APPLICANT

Age-36 years, Occu-Nil,

R/o. House No.A 57/30, Kolhe Nagar,

Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur

VERSUS

Bhagyashree W/o. Ahnil Waghmare,

...RESPONDENT

Age-32 years, Occu-Hosehold,

R/o. C/o. Maruti Ramrao Suryawanshi,

Vikas Nagar, Latur, Dist. Latur

Mr. N. D. Kendre, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Manoj Shinde, Advocate for the respondent

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

RESERVED ON : 20-08-2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 08-10-2021

P. C.

.

The applicant is challenging the judgment and order

dated 10-04-2018 passed by the Family Court, Latur in Petition

No.E-67 of 2017 (Old Cri. M.A. No. 183 of 2015), whereby the

family court directed the applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs.

35,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of application.

2.

It is contended that the respondent had file the

application bearing petition No. E-67 of 2017 (Old Cri. M.A. No.

1 of 16

(2)

crirevapln145.18

183) for monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. It was alleged that the applicant deserted the

respondent and since then the respondent has been residing at her

parental house at Latur. It is alleged by the respondent that she has

no independent source of income for livelihood. It is alleged that

the applicant is an Engineer and his financial position is sound. It is

alleged by the respondent that the applicant was earning salary of

Rs. 60,000/-. He is having private company and earns huge amount

from the said company. It is alleged by the respondent that the

applicant has illicit relation with Sheetal Ubale even after the

marriage. It is alleged that the applicant demanded Rs. 10,00,000/-

from the respondent and her parents. The said demand was not

fulfilled. Therefore, the respondent was harassed and ill-treated by

the applicant.

3.

It is contended that the applicant has denied the

allegations made by the respondent in her application. It is

contended that Sheetal and Shalini are cousin sisters of the

applicant namely daughters of maternal aunt. It is denied that the

applicant never ill-treated the respondent. He never demanded Rs.

10,00,000/- either from the respondent or her parents. It is denied

that the financial condition of the applicant is sound. It is denied

that the applicant is having private company and earns huge

amount. It is contended that due to litigation filed by the

respondent, the applicant lost his job. Now, the applicant is working

in one firm and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is contended that

2 of 16

(3)

crirevapln145.18

the trial court has not considered the defense of the applicant and

passed the improper and wrong order. It is contended that the trial

court has not considered the evidence laid by the applicant

properly. The trial court has swayed away with the submission of

the applicant and passed the exorbitant order of maintenance. It is

contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of

applicant regarding settlement of matrimonial dispute. It is

contended that the respondent quarreled with the applicant and

then left the matrimonial house on her own accord, therefore, she

is not entitled for any maintenance. But, the said fact is not

considered by the trial court. The applicant prays that the order of

the trial court be set aside.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the

applicant had admitted his illicit relation with Sheetal in the

proceeding before the Family Court, Pune. He also submits that

there are several letters written by the applicant to Sheetal. He also

contended that the applicant is in habit of writing diary. The

respondent has produced on record two diaries of the applicant

wherein he has expressed his love and affectio