REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.142 OF 2026 APPLICANT :- Mohanish S/o Mekhram Gondhure Aged about 38 yrs, Occupation Service, R/o House No.162, Khari Tah Lalbarra, Distt Balaghat (Original Respondent) ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) Kusumanjali W/o Mohanish Gondhure (Nee Kusumanjali d/o Dhanraj Sapate) Aged about 31 yrs Occupation Household R/o C/o Dhanraj Sapate New Shivaji Nagar Khat Road, Khokarla Tah. & Distt Bhandara (Original petitioner No.1) 2) Sharsh s/o Mohanish Gondhure Aged about 09 years Occupation Student R/o C/o Dhanraj Sapate New Shivaji Nagar Khat Road Bhandara (Original petitioner No.2) Through natural Guardian i.e. Non applicant No.-1. 3) Shrihansh S/o Mohanish Gondhure Aged about 04 years Occupation Student R/o C/o Dhanraj Sapate New Shivaji Nagar Khat Road Bhandara (Original petitioner No.3) Through Natural Guardian i.e. Non applicant No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N.R. Bhishikar, Advocate for Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. 2026:BHC-NAG:13738 REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 2 DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 01.10.2026 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 13.10.2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The revision challenges the common judgment and order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Bhandara, thereby rejecting the application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and allowing the application filed by the respondent/wife for grant of maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. 4. Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent/wife, had left the company of the applicant on 07.05.2025, for the reason of marriage function of her brother, which was scheduled between 11.05.2025 to 13.05.2025. Even after the marriage of her brother, the respondent/wife did not join the company of the applicant for cohabitation. The Stridhan, valuable articles, jewellery and school documents of the children were also taken by the respondent/wife. The wife had issued notice dated 12.06.2025, threatening to lodge a complaint under Section 498A REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 3 of the IPC and the applicant replied to the said notice requesting her to join his company. However, the respondent/wife did not join the company on account of an allegation of the applicant having an illicit relationship with a co-employee, Sakshi Thakur. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Karmarkar, submits that despite leading cogent evidence establishing the fact that the respondent/wife had left the company of the applicant without any reason and that the applicant is willing to cohabit with his wife, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights came to be rejected, ignoring the vital aspects and reasons for which the applicant was filed. The learned Family Court unnecessarily relied upon the allegations made by the respondent/wife that the applicant is having illicit relationship and rejected the application for restitution of conjugal right. The impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside, and the respondent/wife is directed to cohabit with the applicant. A decree of restitution of conjugal rights may therefore be passed. 6. Mr. Karmarkar, further submits that the learned Family Court failed to take into consideration that the applicant was always ready and willing to take the respondent/wife back for cohabitation and ready to maintain her. Without refusal on the part of the REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 4 applicant to maintain the respondent/wife, the applicant/husband could not be directed to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife and children. Furthermore, the learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that the applicant transferred plot No.1, Gat No.65/1/2/2, admeasuring 2626.41 sq. ft. situated at Kesalwada, in the name of the respondent/wife. The learned Family Court without taking into consideration the assets, income and liabilities, has granted Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.4,000/- each to the two children from the date of application i.e. 15.07.2025, along with educational expenses from the date of judgment. According to Mr. Karmarkar, this is excessive and without application of mind and ignoring the fact that the respondent/wife left the company on her own. 7. As against this, Mr. Bhishikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife, submits that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration that the respondent/wife was made to leave the company of the applicant as the applicant was found to be indulging in an extra-marital relationship with his co-employee and allegation that the respondent/wife left the company of the applicant on account of marriage of her brother and thereafter she did not join the company REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 5 of the applicant is only a false ground raised by the applicant with an intention to somehow obtain a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and to deny maintenance to the respondent/wife. The aforesaid allegations that the respondent/wife left the company has been rightly dealt with. The learned Family Court has rightly dealt with the issue of the respondent/wife’s refusal to join the company of the applicant by taking into consideration that the applicant was having an illicit affair with his co-employee and that circumstances were created by the applicant due to which the respondent/wife had no other option but to stay at her parental home. The respondent/wife thus had a reasonable cause for leaving the company of the applicant, who admitted to have a love affair with his co-employee. The learned Family Court therefore rightly rejected the application for restitution of conjugal rights. The impugned order is just and proper and is liable to be maintained. 8. Insofar as the impugned judgment and order directing the payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Bhishikar, submits that the applicant has filed application for grant of Rs.25,000/- per month each in favour of the respondents from the date of application, along with a request directing the applicant/husband to pay Rs.25,000/- REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 6 towards litigation charges. The Family Court took into consideration the fact that the respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself and did not have any source of income. The applicant/husband had previously sent money for the maintenance of his wife and children was found to be false, as no documentary evidence was placed on record to support it. Additionally, chat messages between the applicant/husband and a co-employee was taken into consideration by the Family Court to draw the inference that the respondent/wife had sufficient cause to deny the applicant’s company, thereby making her eligible for maintenance. 9. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that the aforesaid plot No.1, Gat No.65, which was allegedly transferred to the respondent/wife via a gift deed. The applicant/husband challenged this transfer by filing proceedings before the Civil Court at Bhandara, which is sufficient indication that the applicant was unwilling to give anything to the respondent/wife. The children are pursuing their education in Bhandara and the applicant admitted during his cross-examination that their six month school fees were paid by the respondent/wife. Specifically, this included Rs.12,000/- for one child vide receipt marked as Exhibit 43 and Rs.2,000/- for the other child vide receipt REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 7 marked as Exhibit 44. Thus, taking into consideration that the applicant working at the State Bank of India and his net monthly salary of Rs.44,000/-, the learned Family Court has rightly directed him to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.4,000/- each to both the children which includes their educational expenses, starting from the date of the judgment. 10. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 02.04.2026. I have also gone through the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. I have also gone through the application for grant of maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 and the written statement filed by the respondent/wife. I have also gone through the evidence led by both the parties through their affidavits and their cross- examination. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Family Court correctly considered the circumstances which compelled the respondent/wife to leave the company of her husband. The chats relied upon by the respondent/wife has been exchanged between the applicant and his co-employee. The said messages was relied upon to consider that the respondent/wife had sufficient cause to deny the company of her husband and as such, the application for restitution of conjugal rights came to be rightly REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 8 rejected. 11. The respondent/wife was ready to reside in the company of the applicant/husband however due to the continuous harassment meted out by the applicant/husband, she is not ready for the same. The learned Family Court has found that the circumstances created by the applicant left no option for the respondent/wife but to stay at her parental home and as such, the application for restitution of conjugal rights came to be rightly rejected. 12. Insofar as the maintenance claimed by the respondent/wife is concerned, it is pertinent to note that even though the respondent/wife has claimed for a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for each of the respondents, the applicant/husband earns Rs.99,000/- per month as a salary and the said plot executed in the name of the respondent/wife is also a subject matter of the proceeding pending before the Civil Court at Bhandara and the educational expenses have been borne by the respondent/wife as per Exhibits 43 and 44. Thus, the Family Court appears to have granted a reasonable maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.4,000 each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of application i.e. 15.07.2025. The learned Family Court REVN.142.2024 Judgment.odt 9 has also applied its mind to the fact that further direction by the Family Court directing educational expenses of the children from the date of judgment, also appears to be a reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that the applicant is getting gross salary of Rs.44,000/- and that after several deductions including society loan, home loan, car loan, etc. and that no one is dependent upon the applicant. The applicant is having brother and father who have their own sources of income and except for respondent Nos.1 to 3, no one is dependent upon the applicant/husband. As such, it was found that the applicant is liable to maintain the respondent/wife and the two children 13. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any error so as to call for interference of this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is therefore devoid of substance and merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. Rule is discharged. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 15:02:05