1 29-revn-168-24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 168 OF 2024 Kaseshwar Ambadas Shirsat Versus Gita Kasheshwar Shirsat Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Purushottam Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Archana P. Murrey, Appointed Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 5th OCTOBER, 2026. The application challenges the judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Buldhana in Petition No. E-60 of 2023, thereby granting maintenance in favour of the non-applicant wife at the rate of Rs.7,000/- as well as Rs. 3000/- to the non-applicant/son. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that non-applicant/wife has failed to prove that the applicant has refused to maintain the non-applicant. The non-applicant/wife herself left the company of the applicant without any reason only on the ground that the applicant used to suspect her character. The applicant has never SKNair 2026:BHC-NAG:13426 2 29-revn-168-24.odt refused to maintain the non-applicant and as such impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance to the non- applicant/wife is therefore erroneous and calls for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 3. In so far as the grant of maintenance to the non-applicant no.2/son is concerned, the non-applicant no.2/son was granted maintenance as he was minor at the time of passing of the impugned order by the learned Family Court, Buldhana. Now, the non-applicant no.2/son has also attained the majority and as such in view of the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court, the non-applicant no.2/son cannot be held to be entitled for the maintenance. The impugned order granting maintenance to the non- applicant no.2/son also needs to be corrected and modified. 4. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court, Buldhana refused to grant maintenance to the non-applicant no.3/major daughter, wherein it was found non- applicant no.3/daughter in the maintenance petition had attained the age of majority. The same ground could be adopted now to correct the order of granting maintenance in favour of the non-applicant no.2/son, SKNair 3 29-revn-168-24.odt who has attained the majority during the pendency of the revision on 09.03.2025, the impugned order is passed ignoring such vital aspect of the matter that the applicant has never refused to maintain the non- applicant and the non-applicant herself has left the company of the applicant voluntarily without any sufficient reasons. Thus, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. 5. As against this Mrs. Archana Murrey, learned appointed counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant strongly opposes the present application on the ground that there were continuous quarrel between the applicant/husband and the non-applicant on account of the applicant/husband suspecting the character of the non-applicant/wife and therefore the applicant has created such circumstances, and hence, the non-applicant has compelled to leave the company of the applicant. The non-applicant/wife was still wanting to live with the applicant/husband. However, due to aforesaid circumstances and the merciless assault carried by the applicant/husband time and again, the non-applicant had no other option but to leave the company of the applicant/husband. The learned Family Court has taken the aforesaid fact into consideration and has found that the applicant has failed to SKNair 4 29-revn-168-24.odt maintain the non-applicant and therefore granted maintenance of amount of Rs.7000/-. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the applicant/husband has failed to file any income, assets and liabilities of affidavit, even though time was granted by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court has therefore arrived at a proper conclusion for granting maintenance of reasonable amount of Rs.7000/- to the non-applicant/wife and Rs.3000/- to the non-applicant no.2/son. The impugned order is just and proper and is liable to be maintained. 6. In so far as the ground raised by the applicant granting maintenance to the non-applicant no.2 child, it is submitted by the learned appointed counsel that merely because the non-applicant no.2 has attained the majority by itself would not dis-entitle the non-applicant no.2/son to receive the maintenance. The non-applicant no.2/son is still taking education and requires expenses to be borne by the non- applicant/wife and hence the submissions made by the applicant/husband that the non-applicant no.2/son be denied the maintenance in view of attaining majority is misconceived and liable to SKNair 5 29-revn-168-24.odt be rejected and application is being devoid of merit and needs to be rejected. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Buldhana. I have also gone through the application and the affidavits along with the depositions filed in the present revision application. The perusal of the record shows that the applicant was found to be driving four wheeler Maxima vehicle and was earning livelihood through the same. There are allegations of the applicant subjecting the non-applicant/wife cruelty and on account of suspecting her character. The said facts have been taken into consideration by the learned Family Court, while arriving at the conclusion that the non-applicant/wife had sufficient ground to not accompany the applicant husband. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that even though non-applicant/wife has admitted to have worked temporarily in S2k Shop, Buldhana. However, the wife is doing the said work to make her both ends meet, the same would not by itself deny the right of the non-applicant/wife to claim maintenance. On the contrary, it was found by the learned Family Court that the applicant/husband has failed to produce income proof of assets SKNair 6 29-revn-168-24.odt and liabilities and that his income is within a special knowledge. Taking into consideration the conduct of the applicant, learned Family Court appears to have arrived at a reasonable the quantum of the maintenance to be granted in favour of the non-applicant/wife. The same therefore does not call for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 8. In so far as the maintenance granted in favour of the non- applicant no.2/son is concerned, the perusal of the Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure would show that not only the essential ingredients is that the child should be minor but he should also be unable to maintain himself. The applicant/husband has failed to show that the non-applicant no.2/son has attained the majority and is employed or he is earning his livelihood or he is able to maintain himself. In absence of any such proof being provided by the applicant/husband, I do not see any error committed by the learned Family Court, Buldhana in continuing the order of maintenance, granted by the learned Family Court, Buldhana in favour of the non-applicant/son. 9. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Buldhana is passed after giving detailed reasons and considerations of the SKNair 7 29-revn-168-24.odt submissions made by both applicant/husband and non-applicant/wife, the quantum of maintenance granted to the non-applicants is after taking several factors into considerations. The same does not call for any interference of this Court. The criminal revision being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. 10. The High Court Legal Aid Sub-Committee, Nagpur shall pay the fees to the appointed Advocate Ms. Archana P. Murrey as per the rule. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 13:00:47