AURANGABAD<\/em>: In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2026, Justice Abhay S. Waghwase<\/strong> of the Bombay High Court<\/strong>, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed two criminal revision applications arising from a maintenance dispute under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The case revolved around a husband challenging the grant and enhancement of maintenance ordered in favour of a woman who claimed to be in a marital relationship with him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dispute began when the woman filed proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act<\/strong>, alleging that she had performed a temple marriage<\/strong> with the man in 2007 and later faced cruelty and neglect<\/strong>. She sought monetary relief for herself and her son. The Judicial Magistrate First Class partly allowed her claim and granted \u20b93,000 per month each to the woman and the child. On appeal, the Sessions Court enhanced the amount to \u20b96,000 per month each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband challenged this enhancement before the High Court, arguing that there was no legally valid marriage and<\/strong> questioning the existence of a domestic relationship<\/strong>. However, the High Court examined the scope of its revisional powers under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Waghwase clearly explained the limited role of a revisional court, stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSection 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n He further clarified: \u201cThe object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Emphasising restraint, the Court added:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After reviewing the record, the Court found no glaring error or illegality in the appellate court\u2019s decision to enhance maintenance<\/strong>. Since no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated, both revision applications were dismissed. The High Court, however, granted the husband six weeks\u2019 continuation of interim relief to allow him to approach the Supreme Court<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This ruling reinforces a critical legal principle: revision is not a second appeal<\/strong>. For men facing maintenance disputes, it underlines the importance of presenting strong evidence at the trial stage itself, as higher courts will not routinely reopen factual findings unless there is a clear legal violation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 \u2013 Section 12<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Allows an aggrieved woman to approach the Magistrate seeking relief like protection, residence, and maintenance<\/td> Wife filed an application claiming a domestic relationship and sought maintenance and other reliefs<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 \u2013 Section 2(a)<\/strong><\/td> Defines who is an \u201caggrieved person\u201d under the Act<\/td> The central issue was whether parties had lived together in a relationship in the nature of marriage<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 \u2013 Section 2(f)<\/strong><\/td> Defines \u201cdomestic relationship\u201d as persons who live or have lived together in a shared household<\/td> Husband challenged the applicability of this definition to himself<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 \u2013 Section 2(q)<\/strong><\/td> Defines \u201crespondent\u201d as a male adult person in a domestic relationship<\/td> Wife filed application claiming a domestic relationship and sought maintenance and other reliefs<\/td><\/tr> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2013 Section 397<\/strong><\/td> Husband invoked this provision to challenge the enhancement of maintenance<\/td> Mentioned in comparison to show broader relief available under the DV Act<\/td><\/tr> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2013 Section 125 (referred in case law context)<\/strong><\/td> Provides maintenance remedy to wife, children, and parents<\/td> Governs the admissibility of electronic evidence<\/td><\/tr> Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> \u2013 Section 65B<\/strong><\/td> Wife produced electronic evidence but lacked proper certification under this section.<\/td> Wife produced electronic evidence but lacked proper certification under this section<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n