Dismissed

Sonba Tukaram Ransing v. Sou.Chhabubai Sonba Ransing and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2008WP/1145/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the petitioners' request to enhance maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC, finding the lower court's amount reasonable. The petitioner was allowed to adjust amounts paid under a concurrent civil court order. The petitioners' appeal applications were disposed of as they did not file a separate petition.

What did the court decide?

No enhancement of maintenance granted. Cross-adjustment of amounts paid under civil order allowed. Appeal applications disposed of.

Sonba Tukaram Ransing Vs Sou.Chhabubai Sonba Ransing… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2001.

¶2

Shri Sonba Tukaram Ransing.

¶3

..Petitioner.

¶4

versus

¶5

Sou. Chhabubai Sonba Ransing.

¶6

Kumari Akka Sonba Ransing.

¶7

The Government of Maharashtra. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. S.P.Kadam, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunil Kadam, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 30TH JULY,2008.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

1.		The	submi	ssions	of the	learned	Counsel
appearing		for	the	p	arties	were	heard	on	the	last
date.	It	mu	st	be	noted	here	that	a	mediator	was
appointed		by	this	Cou	rt w	ith a	view	to	resolve	the
dispute	bet	ween	the	Pe	titioner	-h	usband	and	the	first
Respondent-	wife.			The	le	arned	media	tor	has	submitted
a report		dated	11th	Ju	ne	2007	setting	out	the	efforts
made	by	him.		He	has n	oted	that th	e	mediation	has

¶12

failed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was taken up

¶13

for hearing.

¶14

With a view to appreciate the submissions

¶15

¶16

made by	the learned Counsel appeari	ng for	the
parties, it	will be necessary to refer to	the	facts
of the c	ase in brief. The first and	the	second
Respondents	applied under section 125 of	the Code	of
Criminal	Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter refe	rred to	as
"the said	Code") for grant of maintenance.	By	order
dated 15th	December 1980, the said Appl	ication	made
by the	first and the second Respondents	was	partly
allowed and	the Petitioner was directed	to	make
payment of	maintenance at the rate of	Rs.100/-	per
month to	the second Respondent. The	prayer	for
maintenance	made by the first Res	pondent	was
rejected.	A Revision Application was fil	ed by	the
first and	the second Respondents. By	order	dated
13th July	2001, the Revision Application	was	allowed.
The lea	rned Additional Sessions Judge,	Pune	directed
the Petition	er to pay maintenance of	Rs.750/-	per
month to	the first Respondent-wife and	maintenance	of
Rs.500/- per	month to the second	Respondent-d	aughter.

¶17

The maintenance was made payable from the date of the

¶18

original application.

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶20

Petitioner-husband invited my attention to the

¶21

¶22

findings	r	ecorded by the learned Additional S	essions
Judge in	the	impugned order dated 13th July 2001.	He
also	invited	my attention to the notes of ev	idence.
He	pointed	out that the Petitioner had since	retired
and he	was	getting a meagre pension of Rs.3,400/-	per
month.	He	invited my attention to an order passed	by
the	Civil	Court in the civil suit filed by the	first
and t	he se	cond Respondents. He pointed out that	by
order	dated	9th April 2001, the learned Fourth	Joint
Civil	Judge	directed the Petitioner to	pay
maintenance		at the rate of Rs.700/- per month to	the
first Res	pondent	and Rs.300/- per month to the	second
Respondent.		He pointed out that while fixing	the
quantum	of	maintenance, the order of the Civil	Court
has not	b	een considered by the learned	Fourth
Additional	S	essions Judge especially when the	said

¶23

order was passed prior to the date on which the

¶24

Revision Application was decided on 13th July 2001.

¶25

4.	The	learned	Counsel appearing fo	r the first
and	the sec	ond	Respondents not	only	supp	orted	the
impugned	Judgment	and	Order of	the Ses	sions	Court	but
submitted	that a		very meagre	amount	by	way	of

¶26

maintenance have been awarded by the learned Sessions

¶27

¶28

Judge and the said amount deserve to be enhanced.

¶29

5. I have carefu	lly considered the submissions.
The finding of	the learned Additional Sessions	Judge
is that the Petit	ioner was holding the	landed
property and was	taking crops. However,	the
certified copy of	the 7/12 extract did not show	that
the Petitioner was	taking any irrigated crop.	The
learned Judge found	that prior to the retirement,	the
gross salary of	the Petitioner was Rs.16,020/-	per
month and after all	deductions, he was getting	salary
of Rs.7,422/- per mo	nth. As pointed out earlier,	the
total amount of	maintenance awarded by the	learned
Sessions Judge is Rs.	1,250/- per month. In this	Writ
Petition a contenti	on was sought to be raised	that
the Petitioner is	getting monthly pension of	only
Rs.3,400/-. Even	if the said amount is taken	into
consideration, in	view of findings recorded by	the
learned Additional Se	ssions Judge that the	Petitioner
was holding the	landed property, the	total
maintenance amount	fixed by the learned A	dditional

¶30

Sessions Judge in the year 2001 appears to be

¶31

reasonable.

¶32

¶33

6.	It must b	e clarifi	ed here th	at while	making
the	payment of	a	mount	of	the	maintenance	payable
under	the impugned	Ju	dgment	an	d O	rder, the	Petitioner
will	be entitled to	adju	st the	a	mounts	paid by	him to
the	first and	the	second	Re	spondents	under	the order
of	the Civil	Court	dated	19th	April	2001	in the
Special	Summary	Suit	No.209	/2000	in	as much	as the
learned	Additional	Sess	ions	Judge	has	not	taken into

¶34

consideration the order of the Civil Court while

¶35

fixing the interim maintenance.

¶36

So far as the prayer made by the learned

¶37

Counsel for the first and the second Respondents is concerned, the same cannot be granted as the said Respondents have not filed any Petition. In case of change in circumstances, the first and the second

¶38

Respondents can always apply under section 127 of the

¶39

said Code for variation of the maintenance amount.

¶40

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶41

¶42

the	said	order	will	be in	clusive	of	the
amount	paya	ble by	the	Petitioner	as	per	the
order	of the	Civil	Court	dated	9th	April	2001
in	Special	S	ummary	S	uit	No.2	09/2000.
	(2)	This	order	will not	preclu	de the	first
and	the	second		Responden	ts	from	filing
appropria	te					proc	eedings.
	(3)	Criminal	App	lication	No.29	96/2002	and
No.3161/	2003	as	well	as	Crimina	l Ap	plication
No.1548/	2002	will	not	survive	and	the	same
are			dispo	sed			of.

¶43

[ A.S.OKA, J.]

Sonba Tukaram Ransing v. Sou.Chhabubai Sonba Ransing and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonba Tukaram Ransing v. Sou.Chhabubai Sonba Ransing and Ors.

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

K.M. Rao Vs Miss. Shefali Ashok Sharma and Others

Siddhivinayak Developers and Ors. Vs Saral Disha Investments Ltd. and Anr.

Jagannivas Shrinivas Bhat and Ors. Vs Shobhana S. Dholakia and Anr.

Kashinath Prabhakar @ Prabhat Chavan Vs Sujata Kashinath Chavan and Ors.

State of Maharashtra Vs Bhimsingh Shishu Ramsingh Mandal

Aappasaheb Ramu Redekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra