BHARAT KESHAV UGALE Vs. SOMPRABHA BHARAT UGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision arises out of judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dtd. 30/11/2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2018 arising out of judgment and order dtd. 12/2/2018 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Shevgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No. 304 of 2014.

(2.) Learned counsel for revision petitioner would point out that, wife on behalf of herself and two sons instituted Domestic Violence proceedings by invoking provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "Domestic Violence Act"). That, said proceedings were partly allowed by learned J.M.F.C. Shevgaon by its order dtd. 12/2/2018. However, according to learned counsel, there is no grudge on account of grant of compensation to children and present revisionist confined only to the challenge of entitlement of wife to receive compensation, more particularly, in the light of she having secured job as 'Anganwadi Sevika' and earning over Rs.13,000.00 per month. He pointed out that, there is affidavit placed on record by revision petitioner along with certificate issued by wife's employer. Thus, according to him, wife has means and source for her maintenance, and therefore, according to him, both learned J.M.F.C. as well as learned First Appellate Court, which confirmed the order of learned trial Court, erred in granting compensation. Primarily objection of learned counsel in this revision is non consideration of job, employment and earnings of wife from continuous service of over 17 years. In support of his contentions, learned counsel seeks reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy v. M. Devaki, 2003 (1) CTC 723 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in the case of Prathapan S/o. Gopalan, Thiruvonam v. Susobhanakumari, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 1231.

(3.) In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent - wife would justify the order of both learned trial court as well as learned First Appellate Court. According to him, both courts below have correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. He would point out that, there being concurrent findings, this court is precluded from interfering in revision. He would specifically point out that, though wife is shown to be in employment, he emphasizes that, what wife receives is mere honorarium and not salary, and moreover, it is not permanent employment.