Mehula Manish Maru Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2007

¶5

 Mehula Manish Maru. .. Applicant.

¶6

vs.

¶7

 State of Maharashtra

¶8

 & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶9

 Ms. Sumedha Rao for Applicant.

¶10

 Mrs. Chitra Phadke for respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: J.N. PATEL &,

¶12

 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

 DATE: 3RD AUGUST 2007.

¶14

 P.C.

¶15

 . Heard.

¶16

 2. We propose to dispose of this revision
 application at the stage of admission itself as the
 only issue which is required to be decided is whether
 the minor girl child of the couple who has admittedly
 been staying with mother and is going to be now of
 three years deserves to be granted interim maintenance.

¶17

 3. This is a revision application against an
 interim order where the Family Court probably

¶18

 2
 overlooked the case of the minor child for granting
 interim maintenance.

¶19

 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
 applicant-wife who is also representing the cause of
 the minor child that the sum of Rs. 1500/- awarded to
 the wife is itself meagre amount in which the bare
 necessities of life cannot be met. It is submitted
 that the child is now three years old and is admitted
 to a play school and the expenses of the play school is
 in the range of Rs. 1500/- per month leave aside the
 other bare necessities of life which a girl child
 requires at this age.

¶20

 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
 respondent-husband submits that the respondent-husband
 is not capable of maintaining the wife as well as the
 child as he suffers from epilepsy and has no source of
 income. It is further submitted that the
 respondent-husband himself is being maintained by his
 relatives and as he is at the mercy of the relatives,
 it is not possible for him to provide any maintenance
 either to the wife or the child.

¶21

 6. We do not want to go into the merits of the
 matter on the issue of capacity of the
 respondent-husband to maintain himself, his estranged
 wife and girl child as that is the matter which will
 have to be decided by the Family Court on evidence.

¶22

¶23

 7. The very fact that the Family Court found that
 the wife deserves to be granted interim maintenance, in
 our view, it went wrong in overlooking the claim of the
 girl child. On this count, it is the submission of the
 learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband
 that if the body of the interim order is read the
 actual interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month has
 been awarded to the girl child and not to the wife.
 Maybe, that is so. But that issue ought to have been
 taken before the Judge of the Family Court. What we
 find and get from the reading of the operative part of
 the order is that the Court was also inclined to grant
 maintenance to the girl child but while passing the
 operative part it only awarded maintenance to the wife.
 This may be due to inadvertence.

¶24

 8. In the given facts and circumstances, we are of
 the view that at least the respondent-husband can be
 directed to take care of the education of the girl
 child. We, therefore, allow this revision application
 and direct the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.
 1500/- per month towards interim maintenance for the
 girl child from the date of the application made before
 Family Court. We further direct that the respondent
 would deposit all arrears of maintenance in the Family
 Court on or before 30th September, 2007, and would
 start paying maintenance for each month from August,
 2007 on or before 10th and would continue to pay

¶25

¶26

 maintenance every month by depositing the same or
 directly tendering it to the wife by cheque or pay
 order on or before 10th of each month.

¶27

 9. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband
 submitted that the respondent-husband may be given
 accommodation in clearing of the arrears i.e. he may
 be permitted to pay the arrears of interim maintenance
 to the child as directed by this Court in instalment
 along with the maintenance of the current month i.e.
 August, 2007 till the arrears are cleared i.e. Rs.
 1500/- for the current month and a sum of Rs. 750/-
 towards the arrears, in all a sum of Rs. 2250/- till
 the arrears are cleared and thereafter at the rate of
 Rs. 1500/- per month. We order accordingly.

¶28

 10. We further make it clear that this is without
 prejudice to the rights of the parties. The learned
 counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that this
 Court may direct the Family Court for expeditious
 disposal of the application filed by the wife under
 Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
 parties are given liberty to move the Family Court for
 expeditious disposal of the case.

¶29

 11. The Criminal Revision Application stands
 disposed of accordingly with costs quantified at
 Rs. 3000/-

¶30

¶31

 (J.N. Patel, J. )

¶32

 (A.A. Sayed, J. )

Mehula Manish Maru v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehula Manish Maru v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs Bhavna Travels

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Vs Krc Employees Union and Ors.

Gunjan Adukia Agarwal Vs Santosh Adukia

Mrs. Kanak Bharat Doshi Vs Mr. Bharat Kishorchandta Doshi

Dr. Manohar Harjeevan Seth Vs Dr. Uday Govardhan Seth and Anr.

Kallappa Satyappa Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra