This writ petition was dismissed. The court held that the husband's low salary and his unexplained recourse to loans did not warrant interference with the existing maintenance order nor should it be a fit case to allow him to apply for custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.36 OF 2006
-----------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearances, Court’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
-----------------------------------------------------
Smt.Namita Hemrajani for the
petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for the State.
Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
Date : 7.2.2006.
PC
1. Heard Advocate for the
petitioner/husband. This petition
arises out of 125 proceedings. The
husband has been directed to pay
Rs.2400/- per month for wife and the
3 children. The husband has not
bothered to even apply for custody.
It was sought to be argued that the
take home salary of the husband is
low. The Courts below have observed
that his salary for the month of
September-2003 was Rs.6394/-. The
husband has chosen to take loan so
that his take home salary stands
reduced. In this view of the
matter, not a fit case to interfere.
Petition is dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the maintenance orders given the husband's low salary and his failure to apply for custody.
Smt. Namita Hemrajani
Gregory Andrew Singh Vegatec
R.S.Mohite
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court