Partly allowed

Yuvraj Baburao Pahelwan v. Sunita Yuvraj Pahelwan

Bombay HC29 Sept 2009REVN/136/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application, the High Court modified a Family Court maintenance award. The court reduced the monthly allowance from Rs.1200/ to Rs.1000/- for the wife and Rs.800/ to Rs.500/- for the child, noting the husband's irregular income. The court also permitted the withdrawal of past deposits.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Family Court order: Husband to pay Rs.1,000/- to wife and Rs.500/- to the child; allowed withdrawal of Rs.12,000/- deposited by husband.

Yuvraj Baburao Pahelwan Vs Sunita Yuvraj Pahelwan — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.136/2009.

¶4

Shri Yuvraj s/o Baburao Pahelwan- PETITIONER

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

Sow.Sunita w/o Yuvraj Pahelwan- RESPONDENT

¶7

*****

¶8

Mr.Subhash Gaikwad Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr.N.G.Kale, Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : 29th September, 2009.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

1)Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, by
consent of parties, heard finally.

¶12

2)The Award by learned Judge of the Family
Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E-156/2008 by
order dated 9th April, 2009, directing the husband
to make remittance of Rs.1200/- to the wife and
Rs. 800/- to female child (then six months old)
effective from 7th May, 2008, is subject of
challenge before this Court.

¶13

3)The matrimonial discord between the
parties has virtually made their matrimonial life

¶14

¶15

to turbulence. They could not exert the
endurance level to accommodate each other and
depressed for every angularities in the relations
they have approached the court. Out of the
wedlock, they have a son, who is maintained by
the husband whereas the daughter namely Sakshi is
with the wife. Said Sakshi was six months old
when the petition was filed.

¶16

4)Though the acrimony of interse relations
has reached its peak, the fact remains that the
wife or the daughter is expected to live in
atmosphere akin to the standard of the husband or
of the father of the child. Applying this scale,
I find that the husband was a Trainee Operator
with earning stipend of Rs.2750/-, effective from
the date of his joining, i.e. 3rd May, 2007, at
International Conveyors Limited. He was
discontinued by termination letter dated October
31, 2007 effective from 1st of November, 2007.
Such documents were tendered before the learned
Judge of the Family Court below Exhibit-16-A and
the respondent/husband has contended that he has
become a casual labour getting earning of Rs.
80/- per day. The learned Judge of the Family
Court observed in paragraph 20 by carrying
regular assessment that the daily income should
be Rs.150/-. Considering the present scenario of
the average income and by making calculations, he

¶17

¶18

inferred that the husband must be drawing income
of Rs.5,000/- per month and consequently he
concluded that the husband is having sufficient
means to pay separate maintenance allowance to
his wife.

¶19

5)It was contended that the wife is able-
bodied and involved in stitching activities and
thereby getting a good yield. However, it is
only word against word, without any proper
evidence from any person endorsing what the
husband has contemplated.

¶20

6)The fact remains, as stated earlier, the
wife and the daughter cannot be left to winds and
the obligation is cast on the husband to maintain
them. One should not be oblivious that the
husband has to maintain a son out of the wedlock,
who is also minor, and most of the time of the
husband is attended in oscillating with the
litigation faced or branded by the wife against
him.

¶21

7)Since there is no fixed take-home income
to the husband and he has become casual labourer
by virtue of efflux of situation, though one
should accept that the present day earning of a
labour ranges between Rs.100 to 150, but it
cannot be a regular income per day. On

¶22

¶23

occasions, there are breaks and casual
discontinuance in employment. Assessing these
aspects, I find that the Award of Rs.1200/- per
month to the wife and Rs. 800/- per month to the
daughter/child is at excessive level, it needs
little modification as indicated in the operative
part of the order.

¶24

8)Needless to add, if the husband gets
regular employment, the avenues open to the wife
to seek enhancement in maintenance in terms of
Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for herself and her
daughter, are unbridled. Hence, order.

¶25

9)Criminal Revision Application is partly
allowed.

¶26

10)The order dated 9th April, 2009 passed by
the learned Judge of Family Court, Aurangabad is
modified, as under -

¶27

(i) The husband to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees
one thousand) per month to the wife and Rs.500/-
(Rupees five hundred) to the female child Sakshi
by way of monthly maintenance from 7th May, 2008.

¶28

(ii)The husband will also pay the costs of
Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) as directed by the
learned Judge of the Family court.

¶29

¶30

(iii)Whatever past payments the husband has
made, including deposits dated 23rd September,
2009, those shall be subject to accounts.

¶31

(iv)The wife is at liberty to withdraw the
amount of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousands)
deposited by the husband in the Family Court,
Aurangabad in E.R.No.234/2009.

¶32

11)Rule is partly made absolute in the
aforesaid terms.

¶33

( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE

¶34

bdv/crrv136.09

Yuvraj Baburao Pahelwan v. Sunita Yuvraj Pahelwan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Baburao Pahelwan v. Sunita Yuvraj Pahelwan

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

Pandurang Krushnaji Bachkar Vs Shrikant Mohanlal Maniyar

Dattatrao Bhujangrao Sontakke Vs Madan Pralhad Telang and Ors.

Yusuf Khan Hasham Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ayyubkha Majidkha Pathan Vs Mohd.Yousuf Ismullah and Anr.

Maya Atmaram Kamble Vs Atmaram S/O. Vaijinath Kamble and Others

Shahabuddin Umrao Sayyed Vs Bhartari Trimbak Talke and Anr.