1 33.revn.195.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.195 OF 2026 Vijay Amrutrao Ghate and others .Vs. Sau. Sweety Abhijit Ghate Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. P.A. Kadu, Advocate for applicants. Ms. Vaishnavi R. Mankar, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 29/09/2026 1. A limited question which arises in the revision application here is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola was correct in striking off the defence of the applicants. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kadu, submits that the Appellate Court has misled itself in striking out the defence of all the respondents, who are the in-laws of the wife. The non-compliance of the directions of payment of interim maintenance was by the non-applicant No.1/husband alone. The non-applicant No.1 was directed to pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the applicant and her child collectively towards maintenance, medical expenses and house rent collectively from the date of application till the final decision of the maintenance application. 3. The wife had filed an application for striking off the defence of the non-applicants due to non- compliance of the order below Exh.5 dated 02.01.2023, by 2026:BHC-NAG:13161 2 33.revn.195.2026.odt which the interim maintenance application was allowed, directing the non-applicant No.1/husband to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as interim maintenance. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 12.02.2024 by observing that allowing such an application would curtail the rights of the non-applicant to defend himself and proceedings will go on without merits and would affect the final outcome. According to Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the applicants, the order was erroneously set aside by the Appellate Court without application of mind. The Appellate Court struck off the defence of all the respondents, though the non-compliance was only on the part of non-applicant No. 1 and not by all the non-applicants. 4. Resultantly, the defence of all the applicants who are the near relatives of the non-applicant No.1/husband has been struck off and they were not given a chance to defend themselves. The learned counsel further submits that the final maintenance application is also decided vide judgment and order dated 18.08.2026 and several directions were also issued even against the applicants herein. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2026 therefore calls for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction as the impugned order is apparently erroneous and illegal. The learned counsel therefore prays for quashing and setting aside the same. 5. Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are contemplated to file an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act challenging the 3 33.revn.195.2026.odt order passed by the learned trial Court striking off the defence against all the applicants. 6. As against this, Ms. Vaishnavi Mankar, learned appointed counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the present application on the ground that after passing of the judgment and order dated 25.06.2026 striking off the defence of all the applicants, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola has decided the main application of maintenance vide judgment and order dated 18.08.2026 without considering the defence of the present applicants. The defence of the applicants was rightly struck off as the applicants have failed to comply with the orders directing them to pay the maintenance to the applicant/wife collectively by all the non-applicants. Hence, the impugned order is just and proper and liable to be maintained. She further submits that the main application was decided vide judgment and order dated 18.08.2026. Thus, the error, if any, will have to be corrected only in an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act and not in the revision filed before this Court. The application is therefore devoid of substance and merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the final judgment and order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2024. I have also gone through the order 4 33.revn.195.2026.odt dated 02.01.2023 directing the non-applicant No.1/husband to pay the monthly interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- and the order dated 12.02.2024 passed below Exh.65 thereby rejecting the application for striking off the defence. The perusal of the record would show that vide order dated 02.01.2023, only the non-applicant No.1 i.e. the husband, was directed to pay the monthly interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the applicant and her child. The non-applicant No.1/husband has failed to comply with the aforesaid order. The respondent/wife had therefore filed an application for striking off the defence below Exh.65. The learned trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that striking off the defence would mean curtailing the right of the non-applicant to defend himself. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.02.2024, the wife has filed Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2024. The learned Appellate Court has lost sight of the fact that it was only non-applicant No.1 who was directed to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the applicant which was not complied with. Relying upon the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon various judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts has observed that striking off the defence of the respondent for non- compliance of the orders of maintenance is one of the steps which can be taken by the trial Court to ensure the effective enforcement of the orders of maintenance. The learned 5 33.revn.195.2026.odt Appellate Court has failed to take consideration the very findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has observed thus :- “122. The Delhi High Court in Santosh Sehgal v. Shri Murari Lal Sehgal, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 585 framed the following issue for consideration: (SCC OnLine Del para 3) “3. … Whether the appeal against the decree of divorce filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed straightway without hearing the respondent-husband in the event of his failing to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses granted to the wife during the pendency of the appeal.” The reference was answered as follows : (Santosh Sehgal case 2006 SCC OnLine Del 585), SCC OnLine Del para 5) “5. The reference to the portion of the judgment in Rani case, 1996 SCC OnLine P & H 52 extracted hereinabove would show that the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Orissa High Court have taken an unanimous view that in case the husband commits default in payment of interim maintenance to his wife and children then he is not entitled to any matrimonial relief in proceedings by or against him. The view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani's case, 1996 SCC Online P & H 52 has been followed by a Single Judge of this Court in Satish Kumar v. Meena, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 817. We tend to agree with this view as it is in consonance with the first principle of law. We are of the view that when a husband is negligent and does not pay maintenance to his wife as awarded by the Court, then how such a person is entitled to the relief claimed by him in the matrimonial proceedings. We have no hesitation in holding that in case the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to his wife granted by the Court during the pendency of the appeal, then the appeal filed by the wife against the decree of divorce granted by the trial court in favor of the husband has to be allowed. Hence the question referred to us for decision is answered in the affirmative.” The Court concluded that if there was non-payment of interim maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable to be struck off, and the appeal filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed, without hearing the respondent.” 6 33.revn.195.2026.odt 126. Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the Courts find default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a dependant unemployed wife, and minor children. Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate Court.” 9. Thus striking of the defence shall be done only as last resort after exercising all other options available to the Court. The learned Appellate Court has mechanically struck off the defence of all the applicants without taking into consideration that the directions for payment of the maintenance was only against the non-applicant No.1/husband and not against all the other relatives who are the applicants here. It is pertinent to note that Section 498A of the IPC, a proceeding against the applicants are quashed and set aside and it is still continuing against the husband. Thus, the striking off defence can also be restricted to as against the husband only. Insofar as the apprehension of the respondent’s counsel that the final order dated 18.06.2026 would be affected if the revision is allowed, is concerned, it is clarified that the present order would affect only the directions issued against the applicants (relatives) and shall not affect the directions against the husband in the final order dated 18.06.2026. The impugned order dated 25.06.2026, therefore, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, which needs to be corrected in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, and hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :- 7 33.revn.195.2026.odt ORDER (a) The impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2024 and the directions given in Para No.(3) directing the striking off the defence due to non-compliance of the order passed below Exh.5 against the applicants, is hereby quashed and set aside. (b) The striking off the defence is restricted only against the non-applicant No.1/husband. (c) The revision is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. (d) The fees for the appointed counsel shall be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 18:17:02