Prashant Raghunath Ghag v. Vaishali Prashant Ghag

K.R. Gadekar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 188 OF 2025 Prashant Raghunath Ghag ...Applicant

Versus

Vaishali Prashant Ghag

...Respondents

_______________________________________________________________ Mr. D.S. Manerkar, i/by. Rohit A. Yadav, for Applicant Mr. Vijay P. Agale, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Mr. A.R. Metkari, for Respondent-State _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 05 DECEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard, Mr. Manerkar, learned Counsel for Applicant, Mr. Vijay Agale, learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Metkari, learned APP for the Respondent No.4-State.

2.

By the present Criminal Revision Application, the Applicant is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 1st February, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in PWDVA No.33 of 2024 as also order dated 9th November,2023 passed by the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane below Exhibit '5' in PWDVA Application NO. 340 of 2018.

3.

By the impugned order dated 9th November,2023, the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class has directed the present Applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the Respondent No.1 i.e. wife and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. daughters. The said order is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by impugned order dated 1st February, 2025.

4.

It is admitted position that the Respondent No.1 i.e. wife is single handedly looking after and maintaining the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e. daughters. Respondent No.1 is working in private establishment and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

5.

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has observed that the Applicant is conducting business of travel agency and earning Rs. 75,000/- per month. It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that now he is not running the said business and he is only earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 6.

However, perusal of the records shows that except an amount of Rs.10,000/- since 2018 till date nothing has been contributed by the Applicant even for the maintenance of the daughters. The arrears are more than Rs. 12,00,000/-.

7.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, on instructions of the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is not in a position to pay any maintenance.

8.

Perusal of the record shows that the Applicant has not come with

the true case and he is not disclosing his income. In any case, he is not even maintaining his daughters.

9.

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Application is dismissed with cost.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]