Partly allowed

Santosh Waman Gholap v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2004REVN/486/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding family maintenance, the High Court found the lower court applied mind improperly in fixing maintenance for the wife. The Court reduced the interim maintenance rate, allowed partial withdrawal of deposited funds, and remitted the matter for further directions on amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance rate set aside and fixed at Rs.750/month; security deposit partially withdrawn; matter remitted for further directions.

Santosh Waman Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.486 OF 2002 Shri Santosh Waman Gholap ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashatra & Ors..Respondents Shri R.S. Kate, for the Applicant Ms. G.P. Mulekar, A.G.P. for the State CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 1st September,2004 P.C.: 1. Respondents though served have failed to appear. In terms of the order of this Court dated 22nd July, 2004 learned Counsel for the applicant produces receipt

¶3

evidencing deposit of Rs.36,000/- before the Family Court on

¶4

30th August, 2004.

¶5

After considering the impugned order we find that there has been no proper application of mind in so far as fixation of maintenance in so far as respondent No.2 wife. It is no doubt true that in the absence of material it was open to the Family Court to consider totality of the circumstances and arrive at a finding on the earning capacity of the

¶6

petitioner but could not have been based on assumptions.

¶7

Considering the above, the following order:-

¶8

(i) Maintenance awarded in favour of Respondent No.3-son

¶9

is not disturbed.

¶10

(ii) In so far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, we set

¶11

aside the order of grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/per month and fix interim maintenance at Rs.750/-

¶12

per month pending the hearing and final disposal of the

¶13

-2-

¶14

Criminal Revision Application before the Family Court.

¶15

(iii)	At the	bar on be	half of the	petitioner	Coun	sel
submitted	that	the	pet	itioner	is	willing	to take		back	the
respondents	2	and	3.	The	Famil	y Court	will	consid	er the	plea
and	if need	be	permit	the	petiti	oner and	respond	ents	to	lead
evidence	on	that	point	and	to	take	assistance	of	Co	uncillor
attached	to	Family	Court	fo	r t	he purpos	e of		finding	out

¶16

whether it possible to amicably resolve the dispute between

¶17

the petitioner and respondents.

¶18

(iv) Out of the amount deposited the respondents 2 can withdraw amount deposited for the son. In so far as the respondent No.2 is concerned the respondent No.2 can withdraw

¶19

50%. Rest of the amount deposited will be subject to the

¶20

final order passed by the Family Court.

¶21

(v) Criminal Revision Application partly allowed in the

¶22

aforesaid terms.

¶23

(vi)	The applica	nt to appe	ar before	the Family	Court on
20th	September,	2004	for		further	directi	ons.	If	the
Respondents	herein	are	not	present	the	Family	Court	to	issue

¶24

notice to the Respondents. Criminal Revision Application

¶25

disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(F.I. REBELLO, J.)

¶27

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J)

Santosh Waman Gholap v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Waman Gholap v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Goma Likrya Bhende and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Gulam Sahab Daud Patel and Anr.

Shweta Prashant Ruikar Vs Prashant Ramchandra Ruikar

Association of Engineering Workers Vs Smt.N.a.Kadam and Anr.

Manisha Girish Pai Vs Laxman v Pai and Anr.

S.S.Patil and Others Vs B.T.Shevale