Partly allowed

Vanita Anil Kriplani v. Anil Parsuram Kripalani

Bombay HC22 Dec 2005WP/8593/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court held that the Trial Court could not refuse to consider an application for interim maintenance for the wife and directed it to decide by 31.1.06, while confirming the interim maintenance granted to the daughter. The challenge to an earlier order was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to decide interim maintenance for wife on or before 31.1.06. Confirmed interim maintenance for daughter and confirmed order of 20.10.05.

Vanita Anil Kriplani Vs Anil Parsuram Kripalani — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

 WRIT PETITION NO.8593 OF 2005

¶3

 Vanita Anil Kripalani .. Petitioner
 Vs.

¶4

 Anil Parsuram Kripalani ..Respondent

¶5

 Mr.Rajiv Narula with Mr.Dhaval D.Mehta i/b
 M/s.Jhangiani Narula and Associates for the
 petitioner

¶6

 Ms.Manjula Rao for the respondent

¶7

 CORAM :S.U.KAMDAR, J
DATED : 22ND DECEMBER, 2005

¶8

 P.C.:

¶9

 . The present petition challenges the order
 dt.14.9.05 only in so far as interim maintenance

¶10

 for the petitioner was not considered by the Trial
 Court. In the circumstances of the present case, I
 am of the opinion that the learned Judge cannot
 refuse to consider an application for interim
 maintenance. In that view of the matter, trial
 court is directed to decide the interim maintenance
 for wife on or before 31.1.06. Interim maintenance
 granted to the daughter is not disturbed and the
 same is confirmed. Petitioner is also challenging

¶11

 the order dt.20.10.05 passed in the Interim
 Application No.80 of 2004. I have perused the
 order. I find no infirmity with the order passed
 by the Trial Court. Documents on which respondent
 has relied upon, copies are already furnished. In
 that light of the matter, there is no substance in
 challenge to the order passed by the Trial Court on
 20.10.05. The said order is therefore confirmed.
 Petition partly succeeds and application for
 interim maintenance is directed to be decided by
 the trial court as above.

Vanita Anil Kriplani v. Anil Parsuram Kripalani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanita Anil Kriplani v. Anil Parsuram Kripalani

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

Chhaya Kisan Kamble Vs Kisan Parabhakar Kamble

Tayabai Maruti Patil Vs Shantabai Maruti Patil and Ors.

Pundalik Bahiriji Ingale Vs Mah.State Road Transport Corporation

Vitthal Anant Bendre and Anr. Vs Sunil Shivajirao Bhosale and Ors.

Kaka Hari Mali Alias Todkar Vs Laxmibai Yashwant Vipat (Decd) by Lrs. Sudhakar Y. Vipat and Ors.

The Sangli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Rajaram Bapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.