ANIL JAGANNATH JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist husband in Criminal Revision Application No.160 of 2025 challenges the judgment and order dtd. 2/4/2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Appeal (PWDV Act)No. 72 of 2022, by which his appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by learned J.M.F.C., (Court No.3), Dhule dtd. 15/9/2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1226 of 2015 stood dismissed. Revisionist husband in Revision Application No.139 of 2023 also challenges the judgment and order dtd. 4/3/2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhule in Petition E No. 03 of 2022 regarding the enhancement of maintenance.

(2.) Facts in brief are that, revision applicant no.1 and respondent nos.2 and 3 are husband, wife and their son, respectively. Respondent wife alleged that, after six months, there was said to be mental and physical cruelty coupled with demand of Rs.2,00,000.00. It is alleged by the respondent wife that, on 26/6/2010,, husband beat her and after taking away her ornaments, she was allegedly driven out of the house, of which she lodged report under Sec. 498-A of IPC. That, before the learned J.M.F.C. Dhule vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 1226 of 2015, she sought maintenance as well as compensation. The above application was resisted by revision husband. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, learned J.M.F.C. was pleased to pass protection orders and further directing payment of maintenance Rs.2,000.00 per month each, to wife and son, respectively, and also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000.00, but learned J.M.F.C. refused relief of alternate residence and prayers for return of Stridhan also turned down.

(3.) Dissatisfied by the above, husband preferred Domestic Violence Appeal by invoking Sec. 29 of D.V. Act, setting up a case that, wife had raised false, omnibus and general allegations of harassment. Allegations of domestic violence was also refused. Judgment of learned J.M.F.C. was criticized for not considering meagre salary allegedly earned by husband to the tune of Rs.12,000.00. The said case also contested by wife and she supported the findings.