Mrs. Leeni W/O. Chandrakant Sardar And Another v. Mr. Chandrakant S/O. Haridas Sardar

2024:BHC-NAG:1951

(1) appr1.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 1/2024 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.18/2023 Mrs. Leeni w/o Chandrakant Sardar and anr. .vs. Mr. Chandrakant s/o Haridas Sardar --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant no.1 in person.

Mrs. P. S. Chandekar, Advocate for non applicant. CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

DATE :

12.02.2024 Heard 2.

Review has been sought on the ground that there is an apparent error on the face of record inasmuch as the court has rejected the prayer to enhance amount of maintenance in favour of applicant no.1 - wife, on the ground that in the year 2014, she was in the employment with HDFC and was compelled to resign for her daughter's welfare. This fact has been noted in the judgment as submissions made by applicant no.1 - wife. 3.

The applicant states that she made a submission that she was Lecturer in Pandav Polytechnic and was compelled to resign for her daughter's welfare.

4.

As against, the learned counsel for non applicant argued that the submission noted by the court in the judgment was indeed made by the applicant and, therefore, review is not maintainable.

5.

I have gone through the judgment. Even if the submissions of the applicants are to be accepted, the same will not change the outcome. Her prayer for enhancement in the

(2) appr1.24 maintenance has been rejected on the ground that despite experience she has not made efforts to seek employment and she has not tendered any evidence in this regard. 6.

In the circumstances, the only relief that can be granted is to correct the status of employment and year of resignation. Accordingly, following corrections be made in the judgment. (a) In paragraph 15, the statement, "She was in employment with the HDFC but was compelled to resign in the year 2014 for her daughter's welfare", be replaced by, "She was in employment with the Pandav Polytechnic College as Lecturer but was compelled to resign in the year 2008 for her daughter's welfare."

(b) In paragraph 17 (v) the statement, "The wife claims that she was required to sacrifice her employment in the year 2014 for the welfare of child.", be replaced by, "The wife claims that she was required to sacrifice her employment in the year 2008 for the welfare of child." (c) In paragraph 18, the statement, "According to her, she was compelled to resign in the year 2014.", be replaced by "According to her, she was compelled to resign in the year 2008."

The necessary corrections be made forthwith and corrected judgment be uploaded accordingly.

With the above modifications in the order, the application is disposed of.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) Kahale