Advocates:
['SANGRAM VIKAS SIRPURKAR', 'GOPAL SAWAL', 'PRAVIN DESHMUKH', 'YASH KATARIA']

1 wp692.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION 692 OF 2021

Neha w/o. Rajnesh Naidu (Joshi),

Aged about 38 years, Occ. Nil,

R/o. 201, Prashant Sahniwas,

Plot No. 1-A, Prashant Nagar, Ajni,

Nagpur 440 015.

…. PETITIONER

...V E R S U S...

Rajnesh s/o. Rajendrapal Naidu,

Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business,

R/o. 301, Pritambuky, Pride Apartment

Adjacent to NVCC Temple Road,

Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

...RESPONDENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, counsel for petitioner.

Mr. Gopal Sawal, counsel for respondent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORA

M: ROHIT

B. DEO, J.

DATE : 07.10.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard Dr. Mrs.R. S. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel

for petitioner and Mr. Gopal Sawal, the learned counsel for

respondent.

2.

Petitioner Mrs. “N” is the legally wedded wife of

respondent Mr. “R”. She has preferred petition E-443/2013,

under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Code”

for short), seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 35,000/-

2 wp692.2021

(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) and Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Thousand) for herself and petitioner 2, who is the child

born from the wedlock, respectively. Mrs. “N” preferred a

separate application seeking interim monthly maintenance.

3.

Mrs. “N” is assailing as many as three orders of the

learned Family Court, rendered below applications Exhibit 329,

Exhibit 337 and Exhibit 369.

4.

Exhibit 329 is an application for striking out the

defence of Mr. “R”. Exhibit 337 is an application seeking

direction to Mr. “R” to deposit the arrears of interim monthly

maintenance before proceeding with the cross-examination and

Exhibit 369 is an application for amendment of the petition and

to claim enhanced monthly maintenance on the premise that

with the passage of as many as seven years from the filing of

the application, the financial needs of Mrs. “N” and the child

have augmented exponentially. It is fairly stated by

Dr. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel appearing for Mrs.

“N”, that no further or additional evidence will be adduced in

support of the enhanced claim, if the amendment application is

allowed. In my considered view, it would not be necessary to

amend the petition if the enhanced claim is sought to be

3 wp692.2021

substantiated by the evidence on record. The statutory scheme

is that the learned Magistrate is obligated to award just

compensation, which may in a given situation, be more than

the compensation claimed. Such a view is taken by the learned

Kolkata High Court in Ganesh Bhakat .vs. Latika Bhakat, 2009

SCC Online Cal.2829 and I respectfully agree. A similar issue,

albeit in the context of the provisions of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 fell for my consideration in Vidarbha Irrigation

Development Corporation, Nagpur..vs.. Laxman Seetaram

Neulkar and Anr, 2021(2) Mh.L.J.198 and, relying on the

decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and

another vs. State of Haryana, 2016(6) Mh. L.J. (SC) 705 and

Narendra and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, [2018(2)

Mh.L.J. (SC) 293], I held that the duty of the Court

determining the compensation is to determine just and fair

compensation, and to award compensation less than just and

fair compensation on the premise that the Court is powerless to

grant compensation exceeding the amount claimed, would be

doing disservice to the statutory duty. Section 125 of the Code

is a social welfare legislation and the laudable o