Ravi Pandurang Rathod,Age-40 Years, Occu-Nil v. Jyoti Ravi Rathod,Age-35 Years, Occu-Household

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.82 OF 2025WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2451 OF 2021 IN REVN/82/2025 Ravi Pandurang Rathod,Age-40 years, Occu-Nil,R/o. Income Tax Colony,Old Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna ...APPLICANT [Ori. Respondent] VERSUS 1.Jyoti Ravi Rathod,Age-35 years, Occu-Household, ...RESPONDENTS[Ori. Applicants] 2.Rutuja Ravi Rathod,Age- 16 years, Occu-EducationUnder Guardianship of mother-respondent No.1Both R/o. Shankar Jin, Near SRP Gate,Gate No.2, JalnaTq. & Dist. JalnaAge- 16 years, Occu-EducationUnder Guardianship of mother-respondent No.1Both R/o. Shankar Jin, Near SRP Gate,Gate No.2, JalnaTq. & Dist. Jalna Mr. V. B. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicantMr. Ramdas B. Singare, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 CORAM:ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.DATE:19[th] SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT : 1.The applicant-husband, being aggrieved by the judgmentand order dated 29-08-2025 passed by the learned Judge, FamilyCourt, Jalna in Petition No.E-65/2019, whereby partly allowed theapplication and granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each per monthto respondent No.1-wife and respondent No. 2-daughter from the date of application. 2.Heard learned advocate for both parties and perused theimpugned judgment and record. 3. At the outset, it appears that respondent No.1, the wife andrespondent No.2, the daughter of the applicant, filed an applicationfor the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. againstthe applicant. After considering the evidence on record, the learnedJudge held that the applicant is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each per month to the respondents from the date of theapplication and accordingly passed the impugned order. 4.The learned advocate for the applicant vehementlyargued that the impugned judgment was passed ex parte withouthearing the applicant. Therefore, he urged that the matter beremanded to the learned Judge, Family Court, for giving anopportunity to the applicant to adduce the evidence. However, onperusal of the impugned judgment, it appears from para 3 that theapplicant remained absent despite the service of notice. Theapplicant's conduct itself indicates that he chose not to appear in theapplication before the learned Family Court and therefore, the matterwas proceeded ex parte against him. Hence, it cannot be said that noopportunity was given. As such, I do not find substance in thesubmission of the learned advocate for the applicant to remand the matter to the learned trial court. 5.It is pertinent to note that the applicant does not disputehis relationship with the respondents. Similarly, he does not disputethat he possessed 2 acres (78-R) of land at the village of Wadiwadi. 6.Apart from that, respondent No. 1 in her testimonycategorically deposed that the applicant has sufficient means tomaintain them, and her testimony remained unchallenged. Therefore,no reason to disbelieve the same. The aforesaid evidence, thus,indicates that the applicant is able-bodied and has a source ofincome. 7.It is to be noted that the learned advocate for theapplicant failed to point out that the respondents have sufficientmeans of income or that the applicant does not have sufficient meansof income to maintain the respondents. On the contrary, the evidenceon record denotes that the applicant holds 2 acres of land. That itselfshows that the applicant has sufficient means to maintain therespondents. 8.On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in paraNos. 10 to 14 of the judgment, the learned Judge held that theapplicant has sufficient means and rightly granted the maintenanceof Rs. 5,000/- each to the respondents. The findings recorded by thelearned Judge are based on the proper appreciation of evidence on 7.It is to be noted that the learned advocate for theapplicant failed to point out that the respondents have sufficientmeans of income or that the applicant does not have sufficient meansof income to maintain the respondents. On the contrary, the evidenceon record denotes that the applicant holds 2 acres of land. That itselfshows that the applicant has sufficient means to maintain therespondents. 8.On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in paraNos. 10 to 14 of the judgment, the learned Judge held that theapplicant has sufficient means and rightly granted the maintenanceof Rs. 5,000/- each to the respondents. The findings recorded by thelearned Judge are based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record. The learned advocate for the applicant failed to point out thatthe order passed by the learned Judge is illegal or perverse tointerfere with it in the revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, judicialnote can be taken that there are rises in the prices of the essentialcommodities; therefore, the maintenance amount granted to therespondents appears to be too meagre to satisfy their daily needs. 9.It is pertinent to note that Section 125 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is a social welfare provision, which must besubjected to an extensive beneficial concern, and this understandinghas been extended to maintenance. Similarly, it must be borne inmind that the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is not a benefit received by the wife and daughterbut rather a legal and moral duty owed by the applicant to maintainhis wife and daughter. Undisputedly, the wife and daughter do notreside with the applicant, and the applicant does not pay themanything for their livelihood/maintenance. This itself is sufficient togrant maintenance to them. 10. It is further evident that the applicant failed to maintainthe respondents when he had sufficient means of income to maintainthem. Thus, it appears that the order passed by the learned Judge isjust and proper and no interference is required in the revisionaljurisdiction. As a result, the criminal revision application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 11.In view of the dismissal of the criminal revision application, the pending criminal application stands disposed of. [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] VishalK/919crirevapln82.25.odt