CRWP-1138-19.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1138 OF 2019

Gajanan Yadavrao Pankade

Age: 49 years, Occu.: Service,

(Police Constable B.No.1103)

Kranti Chowk Police Station,

Aurangabad

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Alka w/o Gajanan Pankade

Age: 43 years, Occu.: Household,

R/o H. No. 4-35-1316, Plot No. 76,

Gurudutta Nagar, Garkheda Parisar,

Aurangabad

2. Rajashri d/o Gajanan Pankade

Age: 22 years, Occu.: Education,

R/o as above

3. Tanmay s/o Gajanan Pankade

Age: 18 years, Occu.: Education,

R/o as above

..RESPONDENTS

....

Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner

Mrs. V.P. Dhorde, Advocate appointed through Legal Aid for respondents

....

CORAM

: R.G. AVACHAT, J.

RESERVED ON

: 02^nd DECEMBER, 2019

PRONOUNCED ON : 05^th MAY, 2020

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

1 / 9

CRWP-1138-19.odt

2.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment and order

dated 10^th May, 2019 passed by Family Court, Aurangabad in petition being

Petition No. E-175 of 2017. By the impugned judgment and order, the

petitioner – husband, respondent in the petition before the Family Court, has

been directed to pay Respondent No.2 – daughter Rs.3,000/- per month from

the date of order in addition to the maintenance granted to her under

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV Act”) and

pay Respondent No.3 – son, Rs.3,000/- per month during his minority and

thereafter pay his educational expenses.

Facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as follows :-

3.

Respondent No.1 is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The

couple is blessed with two children, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent

No.1 – wife had filed an application under PWDV Act (Cri.M.A. No. 1230 of

2012). The said application was allowed on 06^th May, 2016 directing the

petitioner to pay Respondent No.1 - wife Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/-

per month each to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter the respondents filed

application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”). The said application was allowed as stated hereinabove.

The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.

4.

Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. a father is liable/responsible to maintain his

2 / 9

CRWP-1138-19.odt

minor child unable to maintain itself. The father is also responsible to make

provision for maintenance of his major child, if such child, by reason of any

physical or mental disability, is unable to maintain itself. According to learned

Counsel, both Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have attained majority long back.

None of them claim to be unable to maintain itself on the ground of physical

or mental abnormality and therefore, learned Judge ought not to have allowed

the application. He would further submit that the petitioner has already been

paying respondents towards their maintenance persuant to the order passed in

a proceeding under PWDV Act. According to him, no two proceedings for the

same relief under two different statutes is permissible. Learned Counsel

would further submit that the petitioner constructed a house and has given it

to the respondents for their residence. The house has been constructed by

raising a loan. The petitioner has been repaying the loan by monthly

installments. A land, admeasuring 5 Acres 20 Guntha, has also been given to

the respondents for their maintenance. As such, provision has already been

made for their maintenance. Moreover, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being major,

are not entitled to claim maintenance. He has, therefore, urged for allowing

the petition.

5.

Mrs. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the respondents would, on the

other hand, reiterated the reasons given by the Family Court in support of the

judgment and order. Learned Counsel would further submit