932-Cri-WP-1465-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 932 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1465 OF 2018 Vasantrao Subhashrao Magar Age: 47 years, Occu: Agril., R/o. Daudgaon, Tq. Aundha, District Hingoli … PETITIONER (Orig. Opponent) VERSUS Kalpana w/o Vasantrao Magar Age: 37 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Savangi, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani … RESPONDENT (Ori. Applicant) .… Mr. B. N. Magar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil a/w Mr. Dinesh Lingayat, Advocate for Respondent .… CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : January 08, 2026 ORDER :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. At the outset, it is submitted that vide order dated 10.11.2025, the petitioner and the respondent were directed to remain present personally before this Court on 19.11.2025 at 2.30 1 of 7 2026:BHC-AUG:1414 (( 2 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018 p.m., to ascertain the possibility of amicable settlement. However, on that day, it was informed that the petitioner was not in a position to remain personally present before this Court. Therefore, another chance was given and both parties were directed to remain present on 04.12.2025. However, on that day neither the petitioner and Respondent nor their counsel remained present. 3. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed this Court that the petitioner is underwent angioplasty surgery last year and presently he is suffering from serious ailment of cancer. Therefore, both parties are called upon to argue the matter on merits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that in the year 2000, the petitioner and the respondent got married as per the Hindu customs and rites. There is no issue out of their matrimonial relationship. Due to some matrimonial differences and lodging of a criminal complaint by the respondent under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and a complaint under Section 494 of the I.P.C., both the parties are not on good terms and they are residing separately since 2006. Ultimately, the petitioner has filed H.M.P. No.1 of 2015 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani, seeking 2 of 7 (( 3 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018 decree of divorce, wherein a compromise between the parties was arrived. However, said compromise was not futile, therefore, the respondent filed proceeding bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 884 of 2016 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and prayed for maintenance. After conclusion of the trial, on 05.12.2017, the learned J.M.F.C., passed an order and directed the present petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the respondent. 5. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioner/husband filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 167 of 2017, whereas the present respondent / wife had filed Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2018, seeking enhancement of maintenance. On 04.09.2018, the learned Revisional Court passed an impugned order and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Similarly, on 06.09.2018, the learned Revisional Court passed an order in Criminal Revision No.20 of 2018 (Kalpana Vasantrao Magar Vs. Vasantrao Subhashrao Magar), and dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. 6. By the present petition, the petitioner only challenges the order dated 04.09.2018, passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 167 of 2017, arising out of the judgment and 3 of 7 (( 4 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018 order dated 05.12.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 884 of 2016, wherein, the petitioner is under obligation to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m.. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that during the pendency of H.M.P. No.1 of 2015, the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a compromise wherein the petitioner had shown his readiness to give 1 Hectare of agricultural land instead of paying a cash amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh). Accordingly, on 05.01.2016, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani, passed an order below Exh.1 in H.M.P. No.1 of 2015. However, on that day, the respondent/wife was absent for verification and therefore, the said petition came to be dismissed. 8. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has passed an order and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. without considering financial condition as well as earning capacity of the petitioner. So also, the learned Revisional Court failed to consider the income of the present petitioner and confirmed the order of trial Court in mechanical manner, hence, prayed for quash and set aside both the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below. 4 of 7 (( 5 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported findings recorded by both the courts below. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent canvassed that although the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2000 but they are not blessed with a child. The petitioner was driven out of her matrimonial home on account of her inability to bear a child on the eve of Diwali, 2006. Therefore, Respondent took shelter at her parental house and since then the petitioner neglected to maintain his wife/respondent. It is further canvassed that, though the settlement-deed was executed between the petitioner and Respondent but the petitioner refused to comply with compromise- deed. Therefore, no option was left with the respondent except to file proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. After conclusion of the trial and taking into consideration the evidence of both sides as well as financial status and income of the petitioner, the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m., which has been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court on 04.09.2018. Therefore, considering hike of price of daily needs, the impugned order is just and proper, hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5 of 7 (( 6 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018 10. It is well settled principle of law that, it is the obligatory duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children and in case the husband failed to maintain his wife and children, the remedy under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is available including Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act., etc. 11. It is settled proposition of law that considering the income and social status of the husband, the wife is entitled for the specific quantum of maintenance. In the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury NEE Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case of Dr.Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Anr, (1070) 3 SCC 129 and held that the wife would be entitled for maintenance at least 25% income of her husband. 12. In the case in hand, the learned trial Court passed an Judgment and order on 05.12.2017 after considering evidence available on record as well as income of the present petitioner from the agricultural property and other sources and directed the present 6 of 7 (( 7 )) 932-Cri-WP-1465-2018 petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m.. On 04.09.2018, the learned Revisional Court passed the impugned order and dismissed the revision after re-visiting the record. 13. Needless to say that, the respondent/wife has specifically stated in her affidavit that she has no any source of income and she is dependent on the income of her husband / petitioner. So also, the petitioner is having sufficient source of income and also drawing income from his agricultural land. Though the petitioner has availed sufficient opportunity to rebut claim of the Respondent but he failed to bring any material to show that, the Respondent/wife having any source of income, as well as the petitioner has failed to bring any special circumstances on record to show that he is not entitled to pay such maintenance to the respondent /wife. Therefore, the findings recorded by both the courts below are appears just and proper and no substantial grounds are set out to interfere with those findings. Therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] SMS 7 of 7