1 34-revn-106-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 106 OF 2026 Rahul Raju Dantulwar Versus Sau. Nikita Rahul Dantulwar and another WITH CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 300 OF 2026 Sau. Nikita Rahul Dantulwar and another Versus Rahul Raju Dantulwar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2026 Shri S.S.Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Piyush Tidke, Advocate h/f Shri S.S.Deshpande for the non- applicants. Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2026 Shri Piyush Tidke, Advocate h/f Shri S.S.Deshpande for the applicants. Shri S.S.Singh, Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 7th OCTOBER, 2026. The revision No. 106 of 2026 challenges the judgment and order dated 23.01.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Yavatmal in Petition No. E-28 of 2023, whereby applicant Rahul Dantulwar was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the non-applicant/wife SKNair 2026:BHC-NAG:13629 2 34-revn-106-26.odt and Rs.6,000/- towards the maintenance of the non-applicant no.2 daughter of the applicant and non-applicant no.1. 2. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife in Criminal Revision Stamp No. 10881 of 2026 has filed the revision application for enhancement of the maintenance amount directed to be paid vide impugned judgment dated 23.01.2026 and claimed an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards the maintenance of both the applicant/wife and the applicant no.2 daughter. 3. Shri Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2026 submits that the applicant was earlier working in the company and was earning a salary of Rs.1,20,000/- and he is now working in the start-up company and not earning much as to pay the hefty amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 23.01.2026. 4. Shri Singh learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2026 further submits that the non-applicant/wife is also a BDS Graduate and thus able to maintain herself. Thus, the learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and directed the exorbitant amount of maintenance SKNair 3 34-revn-106-26.odt to be paid to the non-applicant/wife as well as non-applicant no.2/daughter. 5. Shri Singh, learned counsel in Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2026 further submits that he has no objection to grant the maintenance to the non-applicant no.2/daughter and he is ready to bear the expenses of the child. However, non-applicant/wife is wrongly granted the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.12,000/- despite of her qualification and eligibility to earn the livelihood for herself. 6. Shri Singh, learned counsel further submits that non- applicant is BDS graduate and is practicing as a Dentist and is earning much amount so as to earn her livelihood. The impugned order ignoring such vital aspect of the matter, is passed directing the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.12,000/- to the wife, therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Shri Singh, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant/husband is now serving at Bangalore, whereas the non-applicant/wife is still residing in Mumbai at the residential flat which was purchased by the applicant/husband and the non-applicant/wife by availing home loan. The applicant/husband has SKNair 4 34-revn-106-26.odt paid the installment of the loan amount till the year 2025. Thereafter, since the dispute of matrimonial nature had arose, the applicant did not pay the installment, however, the non-applicant/wife is still residing in the said flat and there is no expenses for residence to be paid by the non- applicant/wife. The learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and simply granted Rs.12,000/- mechanically, therefore the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and liable to be quashed and set aside and calls for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 8. As against this Shri Tidke, learned counsel for the applicant/wife in Criminal Revision Stamp No. 10881 of 2026 submits that applicant/wife is though BDS graduate that by itself would not exclude the applicant from the purview of seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The criteria for grant of maintenance is that the applicant is unable to maintain herself, the applicant who has suffered trauma due to the conduct of the husband, is unable to earn a livelihood for herself due to her mental condition. The physical and mental torture committed by the husband, has left the applicant/wife without any job. The applicant is still residing at Mumbai SKNair 5 34-revn-106-26.odt and even required to bear the expenses of the child and as such the amount of Rs.18,000/- granted by the learned Family Court is meager maintenance taking into consideration the prices of the essential commodities and standard of living in the metropolitan City at Mumbai. The learned counsel for the applicant/wife therefore prays for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.65,000/- for both the applicant/wife as well as the applicant no.2/child. 9. Shri. Tidke, learned counsel for the applicant-wife, submits that the applicant in Revision Application No. 300 of 2026 is suffering from schizophrenia. The documents annexed to the application demonstrate that the applicant-wife has been undergoing continuous treatment at Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College and Hospital, Yavatmal. It is submitted that the applicant-wife has suffered mental trauma on account of her relationship with the respondent- husband. The learned counsel further submits that, although the applicant-wife is qualified, owing to her mental condition, she is unable to maintain a decent livelihood for herself. In the circumstances, the amount of maintenance deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- per month. SKNair 6 34-revn-106-26.odt 10. Shri. Tidke, learned counsel, further submits that the applicant-wife is presently residing in the flat situated at Padmavati Pearl Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai, which was purchased jointly in the names of the applicant/wife and the non-applicant/husband. However, the non-applicant/husband has failed to deposit/pay the premium/installments towards the home loan availed for purchasing the said flat. Consequently, the applicant/wife is required to bear the loan installments as well as the maintenance charges of the said flat. It is, therefore, submitted that the amount of Rs. 18,000/- per month granted by the learned Family Court is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 65,000/- per month to both child and wife. 11. Shri Tidke, learned counsel for the applicant/wife further submits that the learned Family Court, Yavatmal has failed to take into consideration the assets, income and liabilities of the non-applicant. The husband is earning a salary of Rs.1,25,000/- per month and still even if go by the standards of condition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments granting maintenance of 25% of the income of the husband is on the lower side, the same therefore needs to be interfered by this Court and the amount of Rs.65,000/- shall be paid to SKNair 7 34-revn-106-26.odt both the applicant/wife and applicant/child. Hence, the impugned order is unjust, arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. I have gone through impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2026 and I have also gone through the affidavit and the application for maintenance filed by the applicant/wife. The documents annexed to the criminal revision application no. 106 of 2026 filed by the applicant/husband also contains the school fees record of the child Anyara. The documents annexed to the application also shows that the non-applicant/wife is also working with a hospital Smile-up Multi Speciality Dental Clinic, Orthodontic & Implant Centre, Navi Mumbai. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Yavatmal specifically failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 125(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the income, assets and liabilities of both the wife and husband. The income of the husband is considered as Rs.1,25,000/- and it was also recorded by the learned Family Court that the non-applicant/wife was serving in I.K.S. Health earlier and was earning of Rs.35,000/- per month. The fact of the non-applicant/wife being qualified as BDS graduate is not denied. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and SKNair 8 34-revn-106-26.odt another Vs. Khobbanna reported in (2018) 12 SCC 199, has held that merely the wife being qualified the same does not automatically disqualify the wife from claiming maintenance for herself and also muchless for the children. The mere fact that the wife possesses educational qualifications or earning potential does not, by itself, disentitle her to maintenance, particularly where she is unable to maintain herself. 13. Thus, taking into consideration the observations and the considerations of learned Family Court while passing the impugned order, I do not see any case is made out for interference of this Court in both the revisions, the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the efforts made by the applicant/wife to settle the matter amicably which was rejected by the non-applicant/husband which an attempt to label the non-applicant/wife as “schizophrenic”. Thus, taking into consideration the observations of the learned trial Court which has considered the payment of school fees, coaching undertaken of the child, the repayment of loan, payment of the maintenance of the flat, it appears that the learned Family Court has arrived at a reasonable maintenance which is likely to be paid by the applicant/husband and therefore no case SKNair 9 34-revn-106-26.odt is made out for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order. ORDER i. Both the criminal revision No. 106 of 2026 and criminal revision No. 300 of 2026 are hereby dismissed. ii. The prayer for enhancement of the maintenance amount is rejected and the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court i.e. Rs.12,000/- to the wife and Rs. 6,000/- to the child is maintained. However, the applicant/husband shall bear educational expenses of the child jointly alongwith non-applicant/wife. iii. The amount of Rs.6,60,000/- deposited by the respondent- husband in Criminal Revision Application No.106 of 2026 is permitted to be withdrawn by the applicant-wife. The said amount shall be adjusted towards the arrears of maintenance payable to the applicant- wife. 14. With the aforesaid observations, both the applications are disposed of. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 17:25:56