Decided on December 13,2017

Vijay S/O Maruti Gaikwad Appellant
Sau. Savita Vijay Gaikwad Respondents


T.V.NALAWADE,J. - (1.) This petition is filed to challenge the decision in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2016 which was pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon and also to challenge the decision in Criminal M.A. No. 123 of 2014 which was pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata, which was filed by the present respondents against the present petitioner under the provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In that proceeding, learned Judicial Magistrate directed the present petitioner and his relatives to make payment of Rs. 1,000/- towards rent of the house, Rs. 2,000/- towards maintenance of wife and Rs. 1,000/- towards maintenance of minor issue. The direction was also given to pay Rs. 50,000/- to respondents as compensation. This order was challenged by filing the appeal. In the Appeal, learned Sessions Court maintained the order made as against the present petitioner as it is, but the order as against relatives of petitioner has been set aside by the Sessions Court.
(2.) The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner show that, in the past, proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed by the respondent-wife as against the petitioner-husband, and in that proceedings, the present petitioner had admitted the relationship between them, and due to that, the maintenance order is made under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to order of learned Magistrate, the petitioner is required to pay around Rs. 7,000/- per month and he cannot afford to make such payment to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is required to maintain his old parents, his wife and two years born child from wife Anita. It is also contended that he is required to maintain his sisters and also the family members of his brother. The contention of the present petitioner that respondent No. 1 is not his wife is not acceptable and that contention was not made in the proceedings filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and that order has become final. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 is born to respondent No. 1 from petitioner. In view of this, there is no need to go into more details of this contention.
(3.) The contention made for the petitioner that the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents is exorbitant, has no force. The submissions made and record show that at the relevant time the petitioner-husband was getting salary of more than Rs. 30,000/- per month and after that there is revision of pay due to 7th pay-commission. Now, the husband must be getting Rs. 40,000/- per month. Therefore, it can be said that respondent No. 1 wife who is entitled to around Rs. 8,000/- per month is not getting more amount than the capacity of petitioner.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.