Dinesh S/O Vasantrao Deshmukh v. Sou. Archana Dinesh Deshmukh
2025:BHC-NAG:14279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1031 OF 2025.
Dinesh Vasantrao Deshmukh -VERSUSSau. Archana Dinesh Deshmukh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri V.S. Gokhale, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2025.
Heard.
2.
It appears that in this matrimonial dispute there is a checkered history. The wife has filed an application at Exh.13 for amendment in the main petition contending that she has filed application for recovery of maintenance of Rs.5,22,936/- from the year 2014 to 2021. It appears that the wife was not aware about the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.106/2021, and therefore, she wanted to delete
the amount of Rs.4,23,600/- and only sought recovery for the period of 12 months at about Rs.5000/- per month, which in total comes to Rs.60,000/-.
3.
This application came to be allowed by the learned Judge of the Family Court by its order dated 13.11.2025.
4.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment cannot be permitted as this Court by its order dated 21.02.2022 has rejected the application of the present respondent, and therefore, the application for amendment is not legal.
5.
It appears that the recovery proceedings are initiated and after realizing that the amount of Rs.5,22,936/- claimed from the year 2014 to 2021 cannot be recovered, in view of the orders of this Court, therefore, amendment was sought. By said amendment it was sought to delete the amount of Rs.4,23,600/- and recovery was only sought for 12
months @ Rs.5000/- per month, which comes to Rs.60,000/-. I do not find any error or perversity in the order allowing the application for amendment. The wife has come up with clean hands and seeks only recovery to the extent, as per the orders of this Court. In this view of the matter, the petition fails and is rejected.
JUDGE