952-revn-181-2019.odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2019

WITH APPLN/1677/2021

Aba S/o Amruta Jadhav,

Age : 61 years, Occ; Pensioner,

R/o : Akolner,

Tal & Dist : Ahmednagar

...Petitioner

Versus

1.

Sanjana Aba Jadhav,

Age : 35 years, Occ: Service,

2.

Kum. Sneha Aba Jadhav,

Age : 15 yrs, Occ: Education,

3.

Sarthak Aba Jadhav,

Age : 10 yrs, Occ: Education,

Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are Minor

Through natural guardian of his Mother

i.e. Respondent No.1.

All R/o : C/o Atul Vithal Landge,

R/o Akolner,

Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

...Respondents

Mr. R.S. Kasar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ms. Manjusha S. Jagtap, Advocate for Respondents.

...

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : 30^th NOVEMBER, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the

parties heard finally.

2.

The petitioner/husband has impugned the order granting

maintenance to the respondents by the learned Judge, Family Court,

Ahmednagar, in Petition No.E-147 of 2018 dated 18.03.2019.

952-revn-181-2019.odt

(2)

3.

The petitioner would be referred to as ‘husband’, and

respondent no.1 would be referred to as ‘wife’ hereinafter.

4.

The relation between the petitioner and respondents is

not disputed. The husband made a statement before the Court on

16.04.2019 that he does not want to challenge the maintenance

granted to the children i.e. respondents nos.2 and 3.

5.

Learned counsel for the husband would submit that the

impugned order is bad in law, as the learned Judge did not consider

the evidence properly proving that the wife was living in adultery

with a boy. Further, the order has been impugned on the ground that

the wife herself left the company of the husband. The husband never

refused and neglected to maintain her; therefore, she is not entitled to

the maintenance.

6.

Learned counsel for the wife would vehemently argue

that the husband failed to prove the alleged adultery, and she

deserted the husband without any just and proper reasons. The

reasons given by the learned Judge are in tune with the evidence on

record. The husband utterly failed to prove the so-called love letters.

Hence, the learned Judge correctly did not consider it to prove the

allegations of adultery. She would submit that the children are grown

up, and the wife is taking their care. They are now taking higher

education. Considering the liability of the husband, the quantum

determined by the Judge, Family Court, Ahmednagar, was correct and

952-revn-181-2019.odt

(3)

free from error. The husband has no case for interference in the

impugned order at the hands of this Court. Hence, the petition may

be dismissed.

7.

Following points arise for the determination of this Court

and finding thereon are recorded for the reasons to follow;

Sr.

No.

Points

Findings

1. Whether the impugned order is illegal,

incorrect and improper?

In negative

2. What order?

As per final order

8.

Point No.1:- Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly

relied upon the evidence of DW-3, the stepdaughter of the wife. She

deposed that when her father was on duty in the military, her

paramour used to come to her home and staying with her all night.

The wife used to confine them in a room and lock the door from

outside. In the morning, her paramour used to leave home; at that

time, the wife used to open the door. She found some chits addressed

to her paramour, which proves that the wife was in adultery with the

said paramour. Referring to this evidence, he has vehemently argued

that the evidence produced by the husband is sufficient to believe that

she was living in adultery. In addition, thereto, he has also referred to

some reports lodged against the wife.

9. The burden was on the husband to prove the wife was living in

adultery. Sub-clause 4 and 5 of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure

952-revn-181-2019.odt

(4)

Code debar the wife from claiming the ma