{"id":1299,"date":"2024-01-04T16:24:27","date_gmt":"2024-01-04T10:54:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1299"},"modified":"2024-01-04T17:27:15","modified_gmt":"2024-01-04T11:57:15","slug":"bombay-high-court-upholds-maintenance-to-second-wife-under-section-125-cr-p-c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/bombay-high-court-upholds-maintenance-to-second-wife-under-section-125-cr-p-c\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay High Court upholds maintenance to second wife under section 125 Cr.P.C."},"content":{"rendered":"

Mrs. Alka Bhausaheb Bhad\u00a0 <\/strong>(Petitioner) Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/strong>Mr. Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad\u00a0 (<\/strong>Respondents)<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2022<\/p>\n

(CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21 April 2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, in Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2015. The Revision Court, by its Judgment and Order dated 21 April 2022, set aside the Judgment and Order dated 19 January 2015 passed by the J.M.F.C. Yeola and allowed the Revision Application of Husband. Petitioner\/wife, by present Criminal Writ Petition<\/a>, challenges the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21 April, 2022 passed by Revision Court \/ Sessions Court.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the present writ petition is maintainable?<\/p>\n

Arguments to counsel for petitioner:<\/u><\/strong> Mr. Narayan Rokade<\/p>\n

Mr. Rokade submitted that the Revision Court should not have reappreciated the evidence which was duly proved before the J.M.F.C. Mr. Rokade further submitted that the Petitioner had, in all, examined five witnesses to prove her marriage with the Respondent. Mr. Rokade submitted that it was a promise made by the Respondent to the Petitioner, that he had already divorced his first wife and only entrusting upon the said promise, the Petitioner agreed to get married to the Respondent. Mr. Rokade further submitted that Petitioner in fact, was always ready for a DNA test for her two sons and accordingly she had made submissions before the J.M.F.C. Mr. Rokade submitted that it is a summary proceeding, and there was no reason that maintenance could not be granted to the Petitioner. Mr. Rokade submitted that the marriage was performed as per the customs of the community of the Petitioner and Respondent. Mr. Rokade in his submission, further relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court<\/a> in cases of Badshah V\/s. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr<\/em><\/strong>. So also, Mr. Rokade submitted that the definition of wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is quite clear, and the Petitioner is covered under the definition.<\/p>\n

Arguments to counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong> Mr. Priyank Daga<\/p>\n

Mr. Daga submitted that the Revision Court has rightly taken into consideration the law on the point and had set aside the Order passed by the J.M.F.C. Mr. Daga submitted that the issue involved in this matter has been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chanmuniya V\/s. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha<\/em><\/strong> reported in 2011 (1) SCC 141, and this Court need not go into the said issue, as it is already settled. Mr. Daga further submitted that the Petitioner was not sure about the facts, and she had changed her stand in her evidence, therefore, the evidence of Petitioner should not be considered at all. Mr. Daga also relied upon the Judgment of D. Velusamy V\/s. D Patchaiammal<\/em><\/strong> reported in 2010 (10) SCC 469. Mr. Daga therefore submitted that there are no merits in the Petition and the same should be dismissed.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court held that, \u201cI am of the view that Respondent cannot be allowed to deny the maintenance claim to the Petitioner, taking advantage of his own wrong. The witness examined by the Respondent are interested witness, being his first wife and another being his relative. I am of the opinion as held in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit<\/strong> reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675, atleast for the purpose of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner would be treated as the \u2018wife\u2019 of the Respondent. As far as maintenance claim of the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner had submitted that Respondent is earning around Rs.50,000\/- to Rs.60,000\/- per month. The J.M.F.C. has granted only Rs.2,500\/- per month as maintenance to the Petitioner. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, Rule is made absolute. The Judgment and Order dated 21 April 2022, passed by Sessions Judge Niphad is quashed and set aside. The Judgment and Order dated 19 January 2015, passed by the J.M.F.C., Yeola, is confirmed. Respondent (husband) is granted two months\u2019 time to clear the outstanding maintenance amount. Since 9 years have passed after the passing of Order by J.M.F.C. Yeola, the Petitioner is at liberty to file fresh Application for enhancement of maintenance amount. If such Application is preferred, same should be decided on its own merits.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mrs. Alka Bhausaheb Bhad\u00a0 (Petitioner) Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0 Mr. Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad\u00a0 (Respondents) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2022 (CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) Facts: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21 April 2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, in Criminal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1301,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1299"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1316,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299\/revisions\/1316"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}