MADHUSUDAN Vs. MADHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order passed by learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Mandleshwar in criminal case No.5/2015 titled 'Madhusudan Vs. Madhuri'. This is second round of litigation. Respondent No.1 filed an application against the present applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar seeking grant of maintenance allowance to herself and her minor sonrespondent No.2. The application was registered as MJC No.17/2013 and an ex-parte order was passed by learned Magistrate. An amount of Rs.5,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- for respondent No.2 was awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) A revision was filed before the Sessions Court by the respondents. On getting knowledge of the order against him, the present applicant also filed a criminal revision against the respondents. Both the revisions were heard together by the Sessions Court and while dismissing the criminal revision filed by the present applicant, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar in criminal revision No.246/2013 enhanced the amount of maintenance awarded for respondent No.1 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and in respect of respondent No.2 the amount was enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Against this order passed in criminal revision, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this court, which was heard and disposed of in M.Cr.C. No.5220/2014 by order dated 03.11.2014.

(3.) The Co-ordinate Bench of this court observed that order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar in MJC No.17/2013 dated 22.10.2013 was an ex-parte order. However, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision was passed after hearing both the parties and considering the salary of the present applicant, which was Rs.60,000/- per month, as he was working as Professor in a college, Co-ordinate Bench of this court observed that the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of respondent No.2, who is suffering from partial disability could not be considered to be on reasonable or too high, but, it was observed by the Coordinate Bench that amount of Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.1 seemed to be on a higher side, and therefore, the application was disposed of by modifying the order passed by learned Revisional Court in following terms :-