SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr. Kamlesh S/O Satyanarayan … vs Sau. Dimple @ Meenakshi W/O … on 10 January, 2018

1 REVN68.16.odt



APPLICANT : Mr. Kamlesh S/o Satyanarayan Sharma,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation : Priest,
R/o Rukhmini Niwas, Plot No.52-B,
Dangawali Nagar, Pipla Road,
Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.


RESPONDENTS : 1] Sau. Dimple @ Meenakshi W/o Kamlesh
Sharma, Aged about 26 years,
Occupation : Household.

2] Master Mayank Kamlesh Sharma,
Aged about 12 months, Occupation : Nil,
Minor through guardian mother
i.e. applicant no.1.
Both r/o Hariharpeth, behind 19 Number
School, Mahakali Nagar, Akola,
Taq. and Dist. Akola.

Mr. R. R. Vyas, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. J. B. Gandhi, Advocate for the non-applicants.

DATE : JANUARY 10, 2018.


Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the parties.

::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::

2 REVN68.16.odt

2. The present revision application is filed by the husband

to whom the learned Judge of the Family Court, Akola on 31.3.2016

in Petition No. E-157/2013, directed that he should pay Rs.10,000/-

per month to the non-applicant no.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month

to the non-applicant no.2/minor son from the date of filing of the

petition i.e. 19.12.2013.

3. Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel for the applicant/husband

has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the learned

Judge of the Family Court, Akola.

4. The marriage between the applicant and non-applicant

no.1 was performed at Akola on 08.3.2011. After the marriage,

non-applicant no.1 started residing with the applicant at Nagpur.

5. The non-applicants were required to file a petition under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Akola for grant of

maintenance since according to the non-applicant no.1, after

marriage, the applicant and his family members started causing

mental as well as physical harassment to her and she was driven out

of the house. According to the non-applicant no.1, the applicant is a

::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::
3 REVN68.16.odt

Priest and is managing Radha Krishna temple and Shani temple at

Nagpur. It is also stated in the application that the applicant and his

father has obtained a license from the Government of Maharashtra

under the name of “Radhakrishna Mandir and Jotish Karyalaya,

Vivaha Mandal, Manav Kalyan Bahu-uddeshiya Seva Sansthan,

having registration No. 1/99, Sanstha No.913 and they are

performing the marriages and the earning of the applicant is about

Rs.50,000/- per month.

6. The application was contested by the applicant/

husband. The applicant and non-applicant no.1 entered into the

witness box. The non-applicant no.1 also examined Smt. Dube, the

neighbour. No other witness was examined by the applicant/

husband. After appreciation of the evidence as brought on record,

the learned Judge of the Family Court, in my view, correctly

recorded the finding of fact that the applicant has neglected the non-

applicants and refused to maintain them in spite of having sufficient

means to do so. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and after

hearing the parties to the present revision, it is clear that the non-

applicants are unable to maintain themselves and are absolutely

::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::
4 REVN68.16.odt

dependent on the applicant.

7. That leaves the Court to decide the quantum of

maintenance. According to the applicant, he earns Rs.3,500/- per

month as salary by working as a priest, however, during the course

of his cross-examination, he has admitted that in the Sansthan he

and his father is having interest. Further, the Memorandum of

Association of said Sansthan is filed on record and it is at Exh.60.

The said Memorandum as well the Rules and Bye-laws (Exh.61)

shows that the present applicant is the Chairman of the said

Sansthan. It is also not in dispute that the applicant conducts a

lucrative pooja in Shani temple, which is called as ‘Payari Pooja’ and

collects hefty donations from the persons, who are performing said

pooja. Exh.62 is the account of the Sansthan, which shows that the

Sansthan has earning more than Rs.1,49,000/-. Further it is an

admitted position and the applicant recites that a luxurious car,

worth more than Rs.9 lakhs is purchased in the name of his father.

8. Thus, it is crystal clear that the applicant is having

sufficient means to pay maintenance to the non-applicants.

::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::

5 REVN68.16.odt

9. According to the Judge of the Family Court, the

applicant must be earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. In my

view, in absence of any specific material in that behalf, the income of

the applicant ought not to have been decided on the said guess-work.

Therefore, it is clear that the quantum of maintenance granted in

favour of the non-applicant no.1 is on higher side. Consequently, I

reduce the quantum of maintenance granted to the non-applicant

no.1 from Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month, however,

maintain the maintenance granted in favour of the minor son. Thus,

in total, the applicant will be required to pay Rs.10,000/- per month

from the date of the order i.e. 31.3.2016, since there are no specific

reasons given by the learned Judge of the Family Court as to why the

maintenance has to be granted from the date of application/petition.

10. With this, the revision application is partly allowed with

no order as to costs. The Court is not interfering with the amount of

costs that is granted by the trial Court.



::: Uploaded on – 11/01/2018 12/01/2018 02:11:07 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation