Dattu Dada Dhere vs Shobha Dattu Dhere

Heard Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav, learned Advocate for the Appellant.

By this Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), the Appellant assails the Judgment and Decree dated 7^th January, 2026, passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Barshi, District Solapur (“Appellate Court”), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29^{2026:BHC-KOL:8612} of 2019 (“impugned judgement”), whereby the Appellate Court has endorsed the Judgment and Decree dated 3^rd January, 2019, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karmala, District Solapur (“Trial Court”), in Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013, which granted a maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Respondent.

In Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013, the Appellant (husband) is the Defendant and the Respondent (wife) is the Plaintiff.

The Respondent, the legally married wife of the Appellant, who had been married to the Appellant for approximately 20 to 25 years, instituted Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013 for maintenance, as the Appellant was not providing her maintenance, leaving the Respondent unable to maintain herself.

The Appellant contested the suit and even alleged that the Respondent was living in adultery with Ramdas Jadhav.

After considering the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties, the Trial Court found the Respondent entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and consequently decreed the Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013.

The Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 3^rd January, 2019, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013, before the Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment, the^{2026:BHC-KOL:8612} Appellate Court upheld the maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month granted to the Respondent.

Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the proceedings filed by the Respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), were compromised between the parties and that the Appellant had paid Rs.18,500/- as full and final settlement. It is thus the contention of Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav that, in view of the compromise under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Respondent was barred from maintaining the Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013 seeking maintenance. He has proposed the following substantial question of law at ground (a) of the memo of appeal, which reads as under:-

Perused the record with the assistance of Mr. Pravikumar Yadav, learned Advocate for the Appellant.

The plaint reveals that the Respondent was compelled to file the Regular Civil Suit No. 121 of 2013 because the Appellant husband refused and neglected to maintain her. As a result, the Respondent was unable to meet her day-to-day needs and could not sustain herself. The Appellant has not brought any material on record to show that the Respondent had any^{2026:BHC-KOL:8612} independent source of income or any means to maintain herself.

The filial duty of the husband is to maintain his legally married wife and to ensure that she is not reduced to penury but is able to sustain herself in accordance with the standard of living of the Appellant. The Appellate Court, after assessing the material on record, has detailed that the Appellant is the owner of land Gat No.34/6 ad-measuring 02 H 02 R and Gat No.34/10 ad-measuring 01 H 01 R, with a 1/3rd share in well water, thus concluding that the Appellant has the wherewithal to maintain the Respondent.

The Appellant attempted to deny the Respondent’s claim for maintenance by alleging that the Respondent is having an illicit relationship with a person named Ramdas Jadhav. Apart from making these bald allegations, the Appellant led no evidence to substantiate them. Such unsubstantiated allegations would themselves constitute cruelty to the wife.

There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the Respondent -wife is unable to sustain herself, that she was denied maintenance and that the Appellant, despite having means, has failed in his filial duty towards his wife.

The Trial Court, after assessing the evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties, has concluded that the Respondent has no source of income and that the amount quantified as Rs.3,000/- would be adequate^{2026:BHC-KOL:8612} to maintain the Respondent. Despite the amount of Rs. 3,000/- being meagre, the Appellant has drawn the Respondent before the Appellate Court and now before this Appeal. The Appellate Court has maintained the Judgment and Decree dated 3^rd January, 2019, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2013.

With reference to the contention of Mr. Pravinkumar Yadav, learned Advocate for the Appellant, that in view of the compromise in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C., the Respondent could not maintain a suit for maintenance, the same is required to be taken on record only for the limited purpose of rejecting it. The legislative mandate envisages the grant of maintenance to the wife under various Statutes enacted to provide for maintenance to the wife and nowhere is the intention of the legislature that once any order is passed in either proceeding, the said order would debar re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance in any other Court. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. are summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife. Any order passed in such proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C., whether by compromise or otherwise, would not foreclose the wife's remedy under any other statute.

In view of the above, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court or the Trial Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.^{2026:BHC-KOL:8612} The Second Appeal is therefore dismissed.

No order as to costs.