Ratnaprabha Prakash Jawade vs Prakash Dhyanobaji Jawade - Maintenance Dispute

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 23, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Ratnaprabha Prakash Jawade vs Prakash Dhyanobaji Jawade on 23 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4732

                                                            3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt
                                                      1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2024

                1.      Sau. Ratnaprabha Prakash Jawade
                        Aged about 53 years,
                        Occupation :Housework,
                        C/o Zilla Parishad Quarter No.1,
                        R/o Barad Kopra (&) Tah.
                        Babulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal
                                                                                            APPLICANT

                                                  // V E R S U S //

                1.       Prakash Dhyanobaji Jawade Age:
                        62 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Barad                          NON-APPLICANT
                        Kopra (पुर्नवसन) Tah. Babulgaon, Dist.
                        Yavatmal

                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr. M.P. Kariya, Advocate with Mrs. Savitri Dave, Advocate for
                the applicant.
                Mr.C. B. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for non-applicant.
                  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

                JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- 10.03.2026
                JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :-23.03.2026

                JUDGMENT : 1.               Heard.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 2

1. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent

of learned counsel for the parties.

1. By preferring present revision application, the

applicant-wife has challenged the judgment and order dated

01.03.2023 passed in Petition No.E-159/2020 by the Family

Court, Yavatmal rejecting the application for grant of maintenance

to the applicant as the learned Family Court found that applicant

failed to adduce any cogent and satisfactory evidence to establish

that she has been refused or neglected to maintain by the non-

applicant.

1. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the

application as under:-

The marriage between the applicant and non-

applicant was solemnized on 15.05.1985. From the said wedlock

she begotten one son and one daughter. Now both the children

have attended the age of majority. It is alleged by the applicant

that since beginning of the marriage the non-applicant was

raising quarrels with her on trivial issues.. The non-applicant was

maintaining extra marital affairs. He was abusing and beating the
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 3 applicant and children under the influence of liquor. The non-
applicant was working as Class-IV employee in Zilla Parishad,

Yavatmal. He has retired in June 2018. Even after retirement his

conduct has not been changed. According to the applicant after

retirement, the non-applicant had started residing with another

lady at Arni Road, Yavatmal. He was asking the applicant to

vacate the Zilla Parishad residential quarter. Thus, the non-

applicant had neglected and refused to maintain the applicant and

therefore, she had lodged complaint at Awadhootwadi Police

Station, Yavatmal on 27/09/2018. Thereafter she also lodged the

complaint to Superintendent of Police Yavatmal on 12/11/2018.

It is further her contention that she does not have any source of

income and she is unable to maintain herself. The non-applicant

had left Zilla Parishad residential quarter and now Zill Parishad

Authorities are asking the applicant to vacate the quarter.

According to the applicant, the non-applicant had received Rs.

25,00,000/- as retirement benefit and he is getting Rs. 20,000/-

per month as pension. Thus, he has sufficient means to pay the

maintenance.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 4

1. This application is strongly opposed by the non-

applicant by filing his written statement. He has admitted the

relationship with the applicant. But he denied all the adverse

allegations levelled against him. According to him, after 34 years

of marriage the applicant has made false allegations against him

at the last stage of his life. According to him, he is residing at his

native place at village Barad Khopada and doing labour work.

Applicant was not ready to leave the urban life and therefore, she

herself withdrawn her from the company of non-applicant and

after retirement also she is residing in government quarter

illegally. He further stated that he has provided good education to

both the children as per his capacity as there was no refusal and

neglect on his part and therefore, he is not liable to pay the

maintenance. He denied that he is having extra marital affairs

with another lady.

1. After recording the evidence of the applicant as well

as non-applicant learned Family Court observed that it became

clear that applicant and non-applicant stayed together till

retirement of the non-applicant. Non-applicant has vacated the

quarter allotted to him as his service tenure was over. It is further
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 5 observed by the Family Court that as far as refusal and neglect is

concerned, there is no evidence adduced by the applicant which

will inspire the confidence as refusal and neglect itself is not

proved therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance and

thereby dismissed the petition.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said finding

given by the Family Court, present revision application is preferred

by the applicant.

1. First and foremost submission of the learned counsel

for the applicant was that the Family Court has permitted the

parties to adduce the evidence on affidavit. Thus, Family Court

erred in taking recourse to Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC for recording

of evidence on affidavit as reading of Sub-Section (2) of [Section

10](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/508449/) of the Family Court Act (for short, 'the Act of 1984') makes it

absolutely clear that the provisions of CrPC and Rules thereunder

shall apply to proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code and

therefore, the Family Court has committed illegality by giving go

by to the procedure that is contemplated by the statute. The

another contention raised by the applicant was that despite the
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 6 evidence is adduced that it was the non-applicant who has left the

quarter and withdrawn himself from the company of the applicant

and thereby refused and neglected her to maintain and therefore,

she is entitled for maintenance. It is the further submission that

non-applicant is government employee working in Zilla Parishad

initially drawing salary and after his retirement he received

pensionary benefits as well as pension of Rs.20,000/- per month.

Thus, he is having sufficient means to pay maintenance. In view

of that, revision application deserves to be allowed by granting

maintenance to the applicant.

1. Per contra learned counsel for the non-applicant

submitted that in view of Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act

which postulates that nothing in Section 10(1) shall prevent the

Family Court from laying down its own procedure so as to deal

with the matter in issue before it and therefore, no illegality is

committed by the Family Court. It is submitted by him that the

Act of 1984 is not only a special legislature but also has been

enacted subsequent in point of time than CPC. Hence, it would be

wrong to say that the Family Court has committed an error by

accepting the evidence on affidavit. He has submitted that a
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 7 Family Court is well within its powers to take into evidence any

material, which in the judicial discretion of such Family Court,

may be essential for effectively adjudicating a lis before it whether

or not such material fulfils the requirements of [Indian Evidence

Act, 1872](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1953529/). However, while exercising such discretion, the Family

Court ought to bear in mind that receiving of such material by

way of evidence does not violate the basic principles of legal

system. Thus, though CPC is not applicable within its full rigours

to the proceedings but Family Court is entitled to lay down its

own procedure as warranted by facts and circumstances of given

case and therefore, no illegality is committed by the Family Court.

1. After hearing both the sides and contentions raised by

applicant as well as non-applicant, first I would like to advert the

issue whether applicant is entitled for grant of any maintenance.

In support of the contention applicant entered into the witness

box and filed affidavit of examination in chief stating that her

marriage was performed with the non-applicant on 15.05.1985.

After marriage she resumed cohabitation. She begotten one son

and one daughter from the said wedlock. Non-applicant is serving

in Zilha Parishad, Yavatmal and was drawing salary. Now he is
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 8 retired. It is alleged by her that since marriage she was subjected

for the ill treatment by the present non-applicant. However, she

tolerated the entire ill treatment. She further alleged that non-

applicant was addicted to bad vices like drinking liquor and used

to assault her and her children. Thus, he has refused and

neglected her to maintain and therefore, she constrained to file

application for grant of maintenance. During her cross-

examination she admits that non-applicant is now retired from

service. After his retirement also she is residing along with her

children in Zilla Parishad quarter. She further admits that he has

not received any notice to vacate quarter by her name. She states

that as non-applicant is having extra marital relations and

therefore, she is unable to stay along with him. She specifically

admits that till non-applicant retired from service, she was

residing along with him. Thus, her evidence specifically states that

she resided along with non applicant till he retires. As far as

refusal and neglect is concerned, her evidence shows that till non-

applicant's retirement she was residing with him and he was

maintaining her.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 9

1. To counter the evidence of the present applicant non-

applicant also entered into witness box and he specifically alleged

that till his retirement applicant was residing along with him.

After retirement he went at his native place. As applicant was not

willing to stay in small village, she is still residing in the quarter.

Despite he is served with the notice to vacate quarter from Zilla

Parishad, it was applicant who is not vacating the quarter and

therefore, amount is deducted from his pensionary benefits also.

He specifically stated that as applicant does not want to live in

small village along with him, after his retirement she has not

joined his company. His cross examination shows that his pension

is deposited in his account. He also states that since the date of

marriage till he retires from service he was staying along with the

applicant. He also accepts the liability of his children and liability

towards their education. He specifically admits that after the

retirement he has received pensionary benefits of Rs.12 Lakhs but

he has not incurred expenses towards his wife or children.

1. On the basis of the above said evidence applicant

claimed that she is refused and neglected by the present non-

applicant and therefore, she is entitled for grant of maintenance.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 10 Preliminary stand of the non-applicant is that applicant was

residing with him till his retirement. After his retirement he

vacated the Zilla Parishad quarter and went to stay at his native

place and therefore applicant has not joined him as she does not

want to stay in small village by leaving the urban life. This

contention is to be taken into consideration in the light of

admission given by the applicant also. She has also admitted that

till non-applicant retires she was residing alongwith him.

Admittedly, there was no previous complaint as to the ill treatment

at the hands of the non-applicant. Admittedly, there is no

evidence adduced on record to show that he was addicted to bad

vices like drinking liquor.

1. Coming to the object of Section 125 of Code is to

provide summery remedy to save dependants from destitution

and vagrancy, and thus to serve social purpose apart from an

independent obligation of the parties under their personal law.

Since the object is to prevent vagrancy or destitution by means of

summery remedy before a Magistrate, jurisdiction is preventive

rather than remedial ambiguity. Foundation of an order under

Section 125 is the neglect or refusal of the opposite party maintain
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 11 his wife, child or parents. "Refuse means a failure to maintain or

denial of the obligation to maintain after demand" "Neglect on

the other hand means a default or omission to maintain in the

absence of demand. Neglect or refusal may be implied from the

conduct of a party and did not be a formal refusal. Refusal of

neglect on the part of the husband may be proved not only by

expressed words but also by conduct. Neglect or refusal referred

in Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. is only obligation to maintain his

wife. If no maintenance is filed either negligently or deliberately,

Section 125(1) comes into play. The reasons for non-payment for

maintenance is relevant under Section 125 (1). Neglect or Refusal

to maintain exists if there is non-payment of maintenance,

whether deliberately or negligently whatever be the cause.

Neglect or refusal to maintain exists whenever there is breach of

obligation to maintain whether negligently or deliberately.

Whether there is justifiable and sufficient reasons or not for

separate residence.

1. A husband can successfully resists the claim under

Section 125(1) for maintenance of a wife residing separately only

if he comes within the sweep of second proviso to Section 125(3) 3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 12 of Cr.P.C. Where the wife resides separately and husband wants to

resists the claim for maintenance on the ground he must necessary

make an offer satisfying second proviso to 125(3) Cr.P.C. to

maintain her on the condition that she lives with him. In spite of

such offer made by him if she refuses to live with him then and

then only the Magistrate have a duty to consider the grounds of

refusal stating by her. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there is

such a bona fide offer on the part of the husband, he may still pass

an order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. only if there is a just

ground offered by the wife to justify separate residence. No order

shall be granted in her favour if there is no just ground. The

language in which second proviso to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is

couch, according to me a crucial significance. When the claim is

filed husband has offered to maintain the wife on the condition

that she lives with him. Only if she refuses that offer then it can

be said that she refused to live with him. Only then need the

Court requires to consider that offer can be said to be refused to

live with him. Only the need the court considers the reasons

advanced by her. An offer and refusal at some point of time in the

decision past may not attract the second proviso to Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 13

1. Thus, it is evident from the language of Section 125

which also stipulates that both offer and refusal going by words

offers and refuses in simple language used in second proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that such offer and refusal is not

with the events of the past and must be in present.

1. The wife who without sufficient reasons refuses to

live with her husband is not entitled to maintenance under [Section

125](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056396/) of Cr.P.C. Neither in subsection 4 which deals with such a

situation nor in subsection 5 the Court attends to enumerate what

would be the sufficient cause for a wife/claimant to refuse to live

with her husband and yet succeed in her claim for maintenance. It

is left to be the objectivity determining by the Court having regard

to the circumstance of a case and social ideas and background

facts. The legislature has not exhaustively enumerated the ground

which would furnish the sufficient cause for non-payment of

maintenance order under subsection (1) beyond the three

grounds which are mentioned in subsection (4). Under

subsection (3) if the wife claimant has just ground for refusal she

would be entitled to have an order of maintenance enforced
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 14 notwithstanding the offer of husband to maintain her on condition

of living with him.

1. Torture or ill treatment in the husband house would

be sufficient for refusal by the wife claimant to live with the

husband even though husband may not be guilty personally.

Where the wife cannot reasonable hope to live with dignity with

her husband she may refused to live with him. The offer must be

bona fide and same should not having with object to escaping the

obligation to pay maintenance. The burden that the wife is

refusing to live with him is to be discharged by the husband but

when once that is proved it is for the wife to show that there are

reasons for her living apart from the husband. The object of

Section 125 is to arm wife in difficulty with the cause of action to

get maintenance from her erring husband. If a person offers to

maintaining his wife with condition of her living with him and

she refused to live with him. The Magistrate may consider the

ground of refusal as stated by wife/claimant and make an order

under Section 126 of the Code notwithstanding such offer if he

satisfied that there is a just ground for doing so.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 15

1. In the light of the well settled legal position if the

evidence of the applicant is taken into consideration which shows

that she stayed along with non-applicant till he retires. As far as

ill treatment is concerned, admittedly, there is no evidence to

show that despite there was continuous ill treatment she was

residing along with the present non-applicant. On the contrary,

evidence on record sufficiently shows that they resided together

till non-applicant's retires from the service. After retirement he

went to his native place and the applicant has not joined him

which is sufficient to infer that as she was not willing to stay at his

native place of the non-applicant and therefore, she withdrawn

herself from the company of the present non-applicant. The Family

Court has rightly considered these admissions that in absence of

evidence of refusal and neglect the non-applicant is not liable to

pay maintenance. As far as allegations regarding illicit relations of

the non-applicant is concerned, except bare words there is

absolutely no evidence to substantiate the allegation that as the

non-applicant is residing along with other lady and therefore,

there is sufficient reason for the applicant to stay separately.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 16

1. Admittedly, direct evidence would not be available to

prove the fact that non-applicant is leading adulterous life but

then there has to be some material on record to prove that he is

leading adulterous life by staying along with another lady. Thus, in

the absence of any material as to the illicit relations of the non-

applicant and refusal and neglect on the part of the non-applicant,

learned Family Court has rightly held that for 36 years the

applicant and non-applicant stayed together. There was no

previous complaint by them against each other as to the ill

treatment as well as to the refusal and neglect by the non-

applicant No.2 therefore, there is substance in the contention of

the non-applicant that as she is not willing to reside at his native

place and therefore, she has not joined his company is sustainable.

1. Coming to the another ground raised by the applicant

that procedure adopted by the Family Court is erroneous and on

that ground revision petition deserves to be allowed. In support

of his contention learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance

on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Gayithri vs.

Ramesh reported in [II (1993) DMC 197, and Anil Ambashankar

Joshi vs Reena Anil Joshi](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59897421/) reported in [2016 (6) Mh.L.J. (cri)
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 17 597 ]. Whereas, learned counsel for the non-applicant placed

reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision

Petition No.523/2019 and Criminal M.A.No.9437/2019.

1. While adverting the issue raised by learned counsel

for the applicant, it would be relevant to refer to Section 126 of

the Cr.P.C. and same is set out below:

Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any

person in any district--

1. where he is, or

2. where he or his wife resides, or

3. where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be,

with the mother of the illegitimate child. All evidence to

such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the

person against whom an order for payment of maintenance

is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is

dispensed with in the presence of his pleader, and shall be

recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases;
Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person

  against whom an order for payment of maintenance is

  proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully
                              3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 18 neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed

  to hear and determine the case Ex-parte and any order so

  made may be set aside for good cause shown on an

  application made within three months from the date thereof

  subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs

  to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and

  proper.

The Court in dealing with applications under section 125

shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

The language of subsection 2 of Section 126 is unambiguous in

nature and all evidence relating to proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC is required to be taken in presence of the person against

whom the order of payment of maintenance is proposed to be

made. It is also relevant to refer Section 273 of Cr.P.C. which

reads as under:-

1. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused.
2. Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the

course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the

presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is

dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.[Provided that
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 19 where the evidence of a woman below the age of eighteen years

who is alleged to have been subjected to rape or any other sexual

offence, is to be recorded, the court may take appropriate

measures to ensure that such woman is not confronted by the

accused while at the same time ensuring the right of cross-

examination of the accused.] Explanation. - In this Section,

"accused" includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding

under Chapter VIII has been commenced under this Code.

Thus, plain language of Section 273 Cr.P.C. also mandates that

except as language expressively provided into 'all evidence in the

course of trial Court or other proceeding required to be taken in

presence of the accused on when his/her attendance is dispensed

with in presence of his /her pleaded. In view of the express

provision of Section 126 of the Cr.P.C., there can be no controversy

that a Magistrate while dealing with the application under [section

125](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056396/) of the Cr.P.C. is required to follow the procedure as prescribed

in Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. and all evidence is required to be

taken in presence of the person against whom an order of

maintenance is proposed to be made. However, the proceedings

in the present case are not before Magistrate but before Family

Court established under Section 3 of the Family Court Act, 1984.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 20 Chapter 4 of the Family Court Act, 1984 contains provisions

relating to the procedure to be followed by the Family Courts. Section 10 of Family Court Act provides for the procedure to be

generally followed.

Section 10 of the Family Court Act is reproduced as under:-

1. Procedure generally

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules,

the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)

and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the

suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapter

IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a

Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the

Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall

have all the powers of such court.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules,

the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of

1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the

proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall

prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a

view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 21 the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the

one party and denied by the other."

1. Thus in view of sub section (2) of section 10 of

Family Courts Act the provisions of Cr.PC or the Rules made

thereunder, are applicable to the proceedings under Chapter IX of Cr.PC. However, sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the FC Act

contains a non obstante provision and expressly provides that

nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the

FC Act would prevent a Family Court from laying down its own

procedure, inter alia, with a view to arrive at the truth of the facts

alleged by one party and denied by the other. It is also relevant to

refer to Section 14 of the FC Act, which expressly enables a Family

Court to receive in evidence any report, statement, documents,

information or matter that may, in the opinion of the Family Court,

assist it to deal with the dispute irrespective of whether such

evidence is otherwise relevant or admissible under the [Indian

Evidence Act, 1872](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1953529/).

1. Section 16(1) of the FC Act expressly provides that

the evidence of a formal character may be given in an affidavit
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 22 and may be read in evidence in any suit or proceedings before a

Family Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the FC Act also

enables the Family Court to examine any person as to the facts

contained in his affidavit,

1. Section 20 of the FC Act enacts a non obstante clause and

provides that provisions of the said Act would have the effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law

for the time being in force or any instruction having effect by

virtue of any law. Thus, by virtue of Section 20 of the FC Act, the

provisions of the FC Act, have an overriding effect and in case of

any repugnancy, between the provisions of the FC Act and any

other law, the provisions of the FC Act are required to be given

effect to.

1. Thus, in view of the above, the Family Courts are required

to follow the procedure as set out in the FC Act for determining

the matters placed before it notwithstanding the procedure as may

be stipulated in the Cr.PC.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 23

1. Thus, sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the FC Act expressly

provide that a Family Court is not precluded from laying down its

own procedure notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section

(1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the said Act.

1. Section 10(1) of the 1994 Act empowers a Family

Court to be a civil Court for the purpose of exercising all powers

vested in a Civil Court and the provisions of CPC have been made

applicable to the proceedings before the Family Court, but at the

same time it has been expressly stipulated in Section 10(1) of the

1994 Act itself that such application of CPC shall be "subject to

the other provisions of this Act and the rules." Section 10(3) of the

Act, 1984 act postulates that nothing in Section 10 (1) shall

prevent the Family Court from laying down its own procedure so

as to dealing with the matter in issue before it that is for arrival at

settlement in respect of lis of any suit /proceeding before it or to

determine the truthfulness of the facts in dispute. This provision

by itself shows that the legislature while broadly mandating the

application for CPC to proceeding before Family Court has vested

discretion in favour of such Family Court to devise a procedure on

its own.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 24

1. As observed earlier in view of Section 20 the Family

Court Act have an overriding effect which states that the

provisions of this act shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therein contained in any other law for the time being

in force or any instruction having effect by virtue of any law.

1. The golden rule of interpretation laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [Chief Justice Of A.P. & Anr vs

L.V.A. Dikshitulu & Ors](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192869/) reported in MANU/SC/0416 1978 it is held

that "the primary principle of interpretation is that a

constitutional or statutory provision should be construed

"according to the intent of they that made it"(Coke). Normally,

such intent is gathered from the language of the provision. If the

language or the phraseology employed by the legislation is precise

and plain and thus by itself, proclaims the legislative intent in

unequivocal terms, the same must be given effect to, regardless of

the consequences that may follow. But if the words used in the

provision are imprecise, protean, or evocative or can reasonably

bear meaning more than one, the rule of strict grammatical

construction ceases to be a sure guide to reach at the real
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 25 legislative intent. In such a case, in order to ascertain the true

meaning of the terms and phrases employed, it is legitimate for

the Court to go beyond the arid literal confines of the provision

and to call in aid other well-recognised rules of construction, such

as its legislative history, the basic scheme and framework of the

statute as a whole, each portion throwing light on the rest, the

purpose of the legislation, the object sought to be achieved, and

the consequences that may flow from the adoption of one in

preference to the other possible interpretation".

1. In another judgment [National Insurance Company

Limited vs Laxmi Narayan Dhut](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1785523/) reported in 2007(3) SCC 700 the

Apex Court has held thus:- "Golden Rule" of interpretation of

statutes is that statutes are to be interpreted according to

grammatical and ordinary sense of the word in grammatical or

liberal meaning unmindful of consequences of such interpretation.

It was the predominant method of reading statutes. More often

than not, such grammatical and literal interpretation leads to

unjust results which the Legislature never intended. The golden

rule of giving undue importance to grammatical and literal

meaning of late, gave place to 'rule of legislative intent'. The world
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 26 over, the principle of interpretation according to the legislative

intent is accepted to be more logical.

1. Thus when a question arises as to the interpretation

to be put on an enactment, what the court has to do is to ascertain

" the intent of them that make it", and that must of course be

gathered from the words actually used in the statute. That,

however, does not mean that the decision should rest on a literally

interpretation of the words used in disregard of all other

materials. "

1. In view of the above rule of interpretation as held by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Dikshitulu case and Laxminarayan Dhut case when applied in the present scenario to

the provisions of 1984 Act shows that language as also

phraseology employed in the legislature in question is precise in

unambiguous and unequivocal. Legislative intent, that CPC does

not mandatorily apply in full force to proceeding under 1984 Act

is clearly reveals from bare reading of the legislation in question.

Section 10(3) of the 1984 Act postulates that nothing in Section

10(1) shall prevent the Family Court from laying down its own
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 27 procedure so as to deal with the matter in issue before it. This

provision by itself shows that legislature while broadly mandating

for application for CPC to the proceeding before a Family Court,

has vested discretion in favour of such Family Court to revise a

procedure on its own. The provisions of Section 10(1) and

Section 10(3) of 1984 Act reflect the clear legislative intent to the

effect that CPC does not apply compulsorily to proceedings before

Family Court. The 1984 Act is a special law brought by in

legislation exclusively for adjudicating the matrimonial disputes. CPC is a general procedure law for civil litigations. CPC was

enacted in the year 1908 whereas the Family Court Act has been

enacted in the year 1984. Thus, it is clear that 1984 Act is not

only a special legislation but has also been enacted subsequently

in point of time than CPC. Hence it would be pragmatic approach

as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court while dealing

with the interpretation of the law.

1. From the above discussions the following principles

of law can be culled out. (I) Sub Section (3) to Section 10 read

with Section 20 of the Family Court Act contains non-obstante

clause and gives supremacy to the provisions of the said Act, vis-a-

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 28 vis the provisions of other enactments/Acts. (II) CPC. 1908 is not

applicable with its full rigours to proceedings under the [Family

Courts Act, 1984](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/373687/). In other words a Family Court is entitled to lay

down its own procedure, as warranted by facts/circumstances of a

given case and it is not bound by the procedural rigours of CPC 1908, However, while devising its such own procedure the Family

Court ought to ensure that such procedure is in consonance with

the basic cannons of the jurisprudence such as principles of

natural justice, good conscience and equity. (III) Family Court is

well within its powers to take into account any material, which in

the judicial discretion of Such Family Court, may be essential for

effectively adjudicating a lis before it whether or not such material

fulfils the requirements of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However,

while exercising such discretion, the Family Court ought to bear in

mind that receiving of such material by way of evidence does not

violate the basic principles of our legal system.

1. It is true that procedure adopted while conducting

matters under section 125 is under section 126 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. However, one has to understand that matters

under section 125 are not purely criminal of nature, but
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 29 proceedings are of quasi civil nature, as issue of

maintenance to wife is involved and therefore, the respondent is

not an accused and statement under section 313 is not recorded

while dealing under section 125. So, the proceedings under

section 125 are not treated as purely and strictly criminal

proceedings, though the power to issue warrant

is given to the Court.

1. Chapter IV of the Family Court Act, 1984 lays down the

procedure which is to be followed by the Family Court. It can

follow such procedure as it may deem fit. Section 9 is exclusively

about the settlement and section 10 is about the procedure which

is to be followed generally. Under section 10(1) of the Family

Court Act, the Family Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court

and shall have all the powers of such Court dealing with all the

matters except the matters covered under Chapter IX of the Cr. P.C.

for grant of maintenance under section 125 of

the Cr. P.C. Section 10(2) states that for the purpose of conducting

the matters of maintenance under section 125 of Cr. P.C., the

provisions of Cr. P.C. and rules made thereunder shall apply to the

proceedings before the Family Court. It means that the Family
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 30 Court while dealing with the issue of maintenance shall follow the

procedure under Cr. P.C. which empowers the Court to issue

warrants, pass order of interim maintenance and follow

the procedure under section 126 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the evidence is

to be recorded in the presence of the respondent. However, the

question is that whether part 3 of Section 10 is whether

restricted to only settlements or whether it is dehors a settlement.

The procedure can be laid down to find out the truth of the facts

which are agitated and contested between the parties. It is to be

noted that though there is use of word "or", it is not to be read

conjunctively with the word "settlement" but it is to be read

dis-conjunctively, as the word "at" is used before the words "the

truth. The Family Court can lay down its own procedure in respect

of (ii) adjudication.

1. In view of statements of objects and reasons for

enacting the family Court Act also indicates that the Act also

seeks simplify the evidence and procedure so as to enable the

Family Court to deal effectively. If the provisions of chapter 4 of

the Family Court Act are read bearing in the aforesaid in mind, it

would be at once clear that sub section 3 of Section 10 of the
3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 31 F.C. Act must be read in an expansive manner and Family Court

would not be precluded from laying down procedure which is in

variance in the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. to deal

with the subject matter before it. Section 15 of the Family Court

Act provides that it would not be necessary to record evidence of

witnesses at length but Judge shall record memorandum of

substance of what the witness has deposed. The import of [Section

15](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/659922/) is not that the Judge must record memorandum of substance

in every case. Section 15 is an enabling provisions which makes it

explicitly clear that it is not necessary for oral testimony to be

recorded at length and the Court has an option of hearing the

testimony of the witnesses and recording the substance of his/her

testimony.

1. In view of the above discussion this Court finds no

infirmity with the decision of the Family Court in accepting the

evidence by way of an affidavit permitting the applicant and non-

applicant to tender the same in their examination-in-chief and

providing an opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the

non-applicant and therefore, on that ground also the application is

devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

3 revision application no.14.22.odt..odt 32

1. In view of that I proceed to pass the following order:-

Revision application is accordingly dismissed.

Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

manisha

Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/03/2026 10:58:17