Writ petitioner challenged the Family Court's interim maintenance order. The single judge found the order was justified as the petitioner owns taxis and has sufficient income. Maintaining that no case for interference under Article 227 was made out, the writ petition was dismissed.
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.
acd
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7748 OF 2009
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Ms. Poonam R. Mital, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Poonam B. Bhosale, for the Respondent.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 11/12/2009
PC:
2
thereof. From perusal of reasons recorded in the paragraphs 4 and 5, it is clear that petitioner owns three Taxis and he has sufficient income to pay the maintenance. For the reasons stated in the impugned order, in my opinion, no case for interference in exercise of the extremely limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is made out. Hence, Petition is dismissed.
(D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order allowing interim maintenance can be interfered with under Article 227.
Whether the petitioner has sufficient income to pay the maintenance and reason for not opposing it.
Whether the petitioner owns assets sufficient to pay maintenance without court interference.
Petitioner (Husband)
Respondent (Wife)
D.B. BHOSALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
