Case Note & Summary
The petitioner/husband, Prakash Eknath Dheple, filed a criminal revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the common order dated 14.01.2022 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Criminal Applications Nos. 47/2021 and 01/2021. The background of the case is that the Family Court had earlier granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 (wife) and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent no.2 (son) by order dated 03.03.2017 in case no. E-285/2012. The husband alleged that the wife had made a false statement that she had no source of income, whereas she was actually working and earning Rs. 12,000/- to 15,000/- per month, and had obtained the maintenance order by suppressing facts and playing fraud on the court. He therefore sought cancellation of the maintenance order. The respondents denied the allegations and filed an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, contending that due to inflation and increased expenses, the earlier maintenance was insufficient. The husband denied having the income alleged by the respondents and claimed he earned his livelihood through wage labour and had to maintain his old parents. The Family Court rejected the husband's application to cancel maintenance, holding that he had not proved any of the circumstances provided in Section 127 CrPC, and that the court had no jurisdiction to cancel the maintenance on the ground of fraud. The High Court, in revision, examined the legality and propriety of the Family Court's order and found no error. The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, noting that the husband failed to prove fraud or any change in circumstances warranting cancellation under Section 127 CrPC. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Cancellation of Maintenance - Section 127, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The husband sought cancellation of maintenance alleging fraud and suppression of income by the wife. The Family Court rejected the application holding that the husband failed to prove any of the circumstances under Section 127 CrPC. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to cancel maintenance on grounds of fraud unless the conditions of Section 127 are satisfied. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Revision - Sections 397, 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court in revision examined the legality and propriety of the Family Court's order. It found no error in the Family Court's conclusion that the husband did not prove fraud or change in circumstances. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 1, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the husband's application to cancel maintenance on grounds of alleged fraud and suppression of income by the wife.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the Family Court's order dated 14.01.2022 rejecting the husband's application to cancel maintenance.
Law Points
- Maintenance cancellation requires proof of fraud or change in circumstances under Section 127 CrPC
- Family Court has no inherent jurisdiction to cancel maintenance on grounds of fraud
- Revision against rejection of cancellation application dismissed
