Prakash Dharamdas Borkar vs Pradnya Prakash Borkar

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. A.B. Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondent.

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the judgment and order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhni, in PWDV Case No. 13/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court directed the present applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of the application and further directed payment of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment. The present applicant also challenges the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2022, whereby the learned Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mirza, submits that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 29.05.2018 at Santaji Mangal Karyalaya, Lakhani as per the rituals. Due to matrimonial discord between the applicant and the respondent, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, on 20-07-2019 alleging that she was subjected to domestic violence at the hands of the applicant and his family members. The applicant-husband contested the said application by filing his reply on 03.10.2019. After considering the evidence adduced by the respondent-wife as well as the applicant-husband, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- from the date of the application. The learned Trial Court further directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards compensation for mental harassment.

Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the material on record and did not take into consideration the fact that the respondent had failed to establish that she was subjected to any act of domestic violence at the hands of the applicant. Despite the absence of any such evidence, the learned Courts below proceeded to grant maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife. It is further submitted that, in her deposition, the respondent-wife herself admitted that she was earning an income and that the applicant-husband was not gainfully employed and was dependent upon the income of the respondent-wife. Despite this admission, the learned Courts below erroneously recorded a finding holding that the applicant was liable to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife.

It is further submitted that the respondent-wife had admitted in her deposition that she was earning a salary of Rs. 8,000/-per month while working at Bholashankar Mall. However, the said admission has been overlooked by both the learned Courts below while determining the quantum of maintenance to the respondent-wife. It is submitted that the learned Courts below also failed to take into consideration the fact that the learned Family Court had granted a decree of divorce by allowing Petition No. A-131/2021 vide judgment dated 14.03.2023. According to him, the aforesaid material circumstances were not properly appreciated by the learned Courts below and that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below suffer from non-application of mind and, therefore, warrants interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. He accordingly prays that the impugned judgments and orders be quashed and set aside and the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent-wife be cancelled.

As against this, Mr. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that both the learned Courts below have duly considered the material on record and rightly recorded a finding that the applicant-husband had subjected the respondent-wife to domestic violence and had also neglected her economically. It is submitted that the applicant-husband has sufficient means to maintain the respondent-wife, but has failed to maintain her. It is further submitted that merely because the respondent-wife is earning some income by doing employment for maintaining herself cannot be a ground to deny her maintenance. Learned Counsel further submits that, having regard to the social status of the parties and their standard of living, the learned Trial Court has awarded only a meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/-per month towards maintenance. The direction to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment was also rightly issued, having regard to the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has independently considered the reasoning adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhni, while granting maintenance vide judgment and order dated 10.02.2022 and has rightly upheld the same. Therefore, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below do not warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the applicant is an Engineer and is earning Rs. 2,00,000/- or more per month. Despite having sufficient earning capacity, the applicant has failed to maintain the respondent-wife, who has been compelled virtually to lead a life in destitution and vagrancy since the year 2019. There, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and proper. He, therefore, submits that the present revision application is devoid of substance and merits and is liable to be dismissed.

I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 26.09.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2022 and have also perused the judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhni. On perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below, it is evident that the respondent-wife reiterated the contents of her application in her deposition and stated that the applicant-husband and his family members used to abuse her in filthy language, make demands for a substantial amount of money and assault her. It was further stated that the applicant-husband did not intervene or protect her from the assault and insults allegedly inflicted by his family members. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the respondent-wife had established that she was subjected to domestic violence. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court further indicate that the respondent-wife was subjected to economic abuse and was left without adequate means of livelihood. Merely because the respondent-wife admitted that she was working and earning some income to meet her day-to-day expenses, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny her maintenance.

The applicant has failed to maintain his wife despite having sufficient means to do so. The respondent-wife has established that applicant was working as a LIC Agent and was earning handsome income. It has also come on record that the applicant is having six plots situated at Mouje Bhojapur, each valued at approximately Rs.10,00,000/-. It is further stated that non-applicant No. 2 is a pensioner and receives pension of approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The cross-examination of the respondent-wife further reveals that she is employed at Bholashankar Mall and receives a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. However, the mere fact that she is earning some income cannot, by itself, absolve the applicant-husband of his obligation to maintain her. It appears from the record that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have duly considered the respective incomes and financial status of the parties, and standard of living, as well as the prevailing prices of essential commodities. Upon consideration of these factors, the learned Courts below have arrived at the conclusion that an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance would be just and reasonable. The learned Trial Court has also rightly awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment.

The learned Appellate Court has duly considered the pleadings of the parties and has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the applicant-husband as well as the respondent-wife. The mere fact that the applicant-husband has obtained a decree of divorce, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny the respondent-wife the relief of maintenance, particularly in view of the findings recorded by the Courts below regarding domestic violence and the applicant's failure to maintain her. It is further pertinent to note that the decree of divorce was challenged by the respondent-wife before this Court by filing Family Appeal No. 08/2025. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2026, whereby the appeal was partly allowed and the action initiated under Sections 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was set aside. Though the respondent-wife had initially challenged the decree of divorce, during the pendency of the said Family Appeal, the prayer seeking cancellation of the decree of divorce was given up, and the challenge was restricted only to the action proposed to be taken under Sections 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On consideration of the detailed judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court, it appears that there is no perversity or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below while passing the impugned orders directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment. The applicant has failed to make out any case for interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

The revision application is, therefore, devoid of substance and merits. Hence, the same is dismissed.

Rule stands discharged in above terms.