34. CRI. REVN 212 of 2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.212/2025 Nasir Ahmad s/o Sk. Bashir ...Versus… Sk. Bashir s/o Sk. Munir - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. Saurabh Singha, Advocate (appointed) for applicant Mr. Sanket Joshi, Advocate (appointed) for respondent CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 21/09/2026 1. The present Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22/07/2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Akola in Application No.E-11/2019, thereby dismissing the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant herein, seeking maintenance and enhancement of maintenance from his father/respondent herein. 2. Mr. Singha, learned appointed Counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that the applicant was suffering from handicap to the extent of 82 % and was unable to make his ends meet and was fighting for his survival. The maintenance order was passed in the year 1999 and since there was change in the circumstance, the educational expenses of Rs.5,000/- per month were required for him and Rs.15,000/- monthly maintenance. The applicant was unable 2026:BHC-NAG:12664 34. CRI. REVN 212 of 2025.odt 2 to maintain himself and therefore, prayed for maintenance amount from the respondent/father, who had retired from the employment of M.S.R.T.C. and is also getting pension. The respondent is also ruining a grocery shop and making good income from it. The respondent is also owner of truck bearing registration No.MH-20-AB-8385 and has also owned one Autorikshaw, which was given on rent, and the respondent was getting Rs.40,000/- per month from rent of the vehicles. It was also claimed that the respondent was given compensation by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC), which had acquired the agricultural land admeasuring 1.44 hectare bearing Gat No.283 of village Pimpalgaon, however, the respondent has failed to maintain the present applicant. The applicant has, thus, prayed for enhancement of maintenance, granted in the year 1999. Mr. Singha, therefore, submits that the impugned order is passed not only on the ground of delay but also on merit. There is no specific limitation provided for filing an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence, the dismissal of the application on the ground of limitation is itself fallacious and the same needs to be corrected by this Court. Mr. Singha further submits that on merits also the learned Trial Court has also failed to take into consideration that the respondent was drawing huge income and the applicant is suffering disabilities of 82% and is unable to survive himself. Hence, the impugned order, rejecting application for enhancement of maintenance needs to be set aside, thereby directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. 34. CRI. REVN 212 of 2025.odt 3 3. As against this, Mr. Sanket Joshi, the learned appointed Counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the Revision Application on the ground that the learned Family Court, Akola has taken into consideration that the applicant though claims to be 82% disabled, however, the applicant got married in the year 2003 and has been surviving and maintaining not only himself but also his wife. There are no details given as to whether the applicant is handicapped. The applicant is a major person and thus could not have claimed the maintenance. The learned Family Court has not only dismissed the application on the ground of delay but also on merits. The reasons given by the learned Family Court are just and proper and liable to be maintained. The Revision Application is devoid of substance and merit and is liable to be rejected. 4. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 22/07/2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Akola. The learned Family Court, Akola has taken into consideration that the applicant’s son has not taken Advocate from the Legal Aid but has engaged a private Advocate in the matter, which again points out his good financial position. The applicant has also failed to show that though he is physically disabled the applicant is unable to maintain himself, only then he could be would be entitled to claim maintenance. That the respondent got compensation out of the agricultural land bearing Gat No.283 to the extent of 1.44 hectare of village Pimpalgaon being gone in acquisition by the Irrigation Department, could not be the only ground for enhancement of compensation. The applicant has failed to show that he is 34. CRI. REVN 212 of 2025.odt 4 unable to maintain himself. There was a compromise-deed, executed between his mother and father, while the mother had filed an application for maintenance along with present applicant, son of the respondent. As per compromise-deed at Exh.61, the house was given for residence of the applicant, his mother and his brothers and Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the mother of the applicant for survival of herself and her children. Hence, no recovery application was filed either by the applicant or his mother, when the compromise was entered into on 07/07/2007. The applicant is also living in the house of his father i.e. respondent herein. The applicant himself has admitted in the cross-examination that only the applicant and his wife are residing in the house owned by his father, whereas all other brothers of the applicant, who are also the sons of the respondent, are residing in the rented premises. The applicant has also admitted in his cross-examination that the applicant is ready to take back the case, if he is granted proper share in the properties, owned by the respondent-father. Thus, the reason for filing such an application belatedly after a long period that is for enhancement of the maintenance under Section 125 (1) (c) of Cr.P.C. on account of physical or mental abnormality, is only the proper share in the property owned by the respondent. The applicant has used the aforesaid provisions of law as a suit for partition. Though the applicant has brought on record that the respondent owns two trucks, however, the applicant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that the trucks are being driven by the sons out of the second marriage of the respondent. The income from the said trucks therefore could not be attributed to the respondent-father. 34. CRI. REVN 212 of 2025.odt 5 Looking to the age of the respondent-father and the medical documents filed by him to show his illness and the disability certificate of the father, the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant. I do not see any error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Akola in rejecting application filed by the applicant on the ground of disability under Section 125 (i) (c) and 127 of the Cr.P.C. The application is devoid of substance and merit. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :- O R D E R (i) Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 22/07/2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Akola in Application No.E-11/2019 is maintained. (iii) Fees of the learned appointed Counsel for the applicant and learned appointed Counsel for the respondents be paid, as per rules. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) Wadkar Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 24/09/2026 15:43:07