Criminal Revision Application challenging an order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 for a wife to cover her daughter's school fees. High Court found no error. Application dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 248 OF 2007
Durvesh Amanulla Khan. .. .. Petitioner.
vs.
Kum. Faria Durvesh Khan
through her natural guardian
and mother Shahista Khan
& Anr. ... .. Respondents.
Mr. U.B. Nighot for Petitioner.
Ms. V.R. Bhosale, APP. for Respondents.
Coram: J.N. PATEL &,
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
Date: 14TH JUNE, 2007.
P.C.
. Heard.
2. This revision application is filed challenging
the judgment and order dated 26.3.2007 passed by the
Judge, Family Court No. 1 at Pune, whereby the
applicant-respondent has been directed to pay Rs.
2
3000/- instead of Rs. 2000/- to the
respondent-petitioner i.e. Shahista Khan, wife of the
applicant. The learned Judge of the Family Court found
the need for enhancement of the maintenance as genuine
on the ground that at the time when the earlier
application for maintenance was filed the daughter of
Shahista Khan, born out of the applicant, was two years
old and on the date when the application for
enhancement came to be filed, she was five years old
and has taken admission in First Standard English
medium school and is required to deposit tuition and
other fees and, therefore, to meet the educational
expenses of the daughter of the applicant, it was
necessary to enhance the maintenance.
3. We do not find any error or illegality in the
approach of the learned Judge of the Family Court in
granting enhancement of the maintenance which has been
awarded taking into consideration the need of the
respondent i.e. daughter of the applicant who requires
money towards educational expenses. Therefore, the
petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
(J.N. Patel, J. )
(A.A. Sayed, J. )
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in enhancing maintenance for educational expenses.
Durvesh Amanulla Khan
Kum. Faria Durvesh Khan and Anr.
J.N. PATEL
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court