Bombay High Court Dismisses Husband's Petition Challenging Maintenance to Wife Under Section 125 CrPC. Court upholds maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month to wife despite husband's objections regarding remarriage and income.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 153
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Gokul Yashwant Gopnarayan, challenged the judgment and order dated 27/08/2018 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision No.97/2019, and the judgment and order dated 25/04/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur, in Criminal Case No.216/2010, wherein maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was granted to the respondent-wife, Sangeeta Gokul Gopnarayan. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 03/06/2008 at Gram Panchayat Sonori, Taluka Murtizapur, District Akola. It was a second marriage for both parties; the petitioner's first wife died due to cancer, and the respondent's first husband, Harish Goroba Shinde, passed away. After one month of marriage, the petitioner started ill-treating and harassing the respondent, leading to discord. The petitioner and his son Rahul allegedly abused, harassed, and ill-treated her, and family members beat her and demanded Rs. 30,000. The respondent was driven out of the house and resided with her parents. On 08/12/2010, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.216/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur. The petitioner contested the claim by filing a written statement. The Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month. The petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The court upheld the maintenance order, finding no illegality or perversity. The petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Wife's Remarriage - The court considered whether a wife who has remarried is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Held that remarriage does not automatically disentitle maintenance if the wife is unable to maintain herself. The court must assess the wife's financial capacity and the husband's ability to pay. (Paras 2-4)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Quantum - Section 125 CrPC - Husband's Income - The court examined the quantum of maintenance awarded. Held that the husband's income and the wife's needs must be considered. The award of Rs. 4,000 per month was found reasonable given the husband's income as a retired government servant. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite her remarriage and alleged income, and whether the quantum of Rs. 4,000 per month is justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed. The maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month is upheld.

Law Points

  • Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
  • wife's remarriage
  • inability to maintain herself
  • husband's income
  • quantum of maintenance
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 279

Criminal Writ Petition No. 942 of 2018

2025-10-07

M.M. Nerlikar

2025:BHC-NAG:10300

Mr. R.D. Dhande for the Petitioner, Mr. A.B. Mirza for the Respondent

Gokul Yashwant Gopnarayan

Sangeeta Gokul Gopnarayan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month granted to respondent-wife.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that the wife was not entitled to maintenance due to her remarriage and ability to maintain herself.

Previous Decisions

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur, granted maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month on 25/04/2016 in Criminal Case No.216/2010. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dismissed the revision on 27/08/2018 in Criminal Revision No.97/2019.

Issues

Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite her remarriage? Whether the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month is justified?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the wife had remarried and was capable of maintaining herself, and thus not entitled to maintenance. Respondent argued that she was unable to maintain herself and the husband had sufficient income.

Ratio Decidendi

A wife's remarriage does not automatically disentitle her to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she is unable to maintain herself. The quantum of maintenance must be based on the husband's income and the wife's needs.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 27/08/2018 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision No.97/2019 and the judgment and order dated 25/04/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur, in Criminal Case No.216/2010, wherein the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was granted to the respondent-wife herein.

Procedural History

The respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC on 08/12/2010. The Magistrate granted maintenance on 25/04/2016. The petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 27/08/2018. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 125
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Eligibility Condition for Settlement Commission Applications Under Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that a press release and notification imposing a cut-off date for eligibility to file settlemen...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Transfer Order of Deputy Collector as Punitive and Malafide — Transfer Effected Without Following Section 4(5) of Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duti...