Dismissed

Dattatraya Ganpati Thorat v. Ashwini Mahesh Thorat and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2010WP/10315/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court judge rejected a writ petition seeking to set aside an interim maintenance order of Rs. 2,000/month granted to the petitioner's deceased son's widow. The court held that since the petitioner could not offer a specific self-acquired property, interfering with the maintenance order under Article 227 was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

The interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/month in favour of the 1st Respondent was upheld.

Dattatraya Ganpati Thorat Vs Ashwini Mahesh Thorat and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

wp-10315-09.sxw

SRJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10315 OF 2009

¶6

Dattatraya G. Thorat

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

V/s.
Smt. Ashwini M. Thorat &
Others.. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Amit Borkar, for Petitioner.

¶10

CORAM :A.S.OKA,J.

¶11

DATE :7th APRIL,2010

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

1.By this Writ Petition under article 227 of

¶14

Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an
exception to order of interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per
month passed by the trial Court in favour of the 1st
Respondent who is the widow of the Petitioner�s Son.

¶15

2.The 1st and 2nd Respondent are the Plaintiffs.
The 1st Respondent is a 24 years old widow of deceased
Mahesh who is the deceased son of the Petitioner and the

¶16

2nd Respondent is 4 years old son of the said Mahesh. A
suit for partition and separate possession has been filed
by the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the Petitioner and 3rd
to 8th Respondents. The 3rd and 4th Respondents are the sons

¶17

of the Petitioner. The other Respondents are the family
members of the Petitioner. The suit is for the partition

¶18

SRJ 2 wp-10315-09.sxw

¶19

and separate possession of the share of the 1st and 2nd
Respondents in respect of various properties described in
paragraph 1 of the Plaint. Out of the suit properties,
five properties are house properties situated in the city
of Kolhapur and the sixth property is an agricultural
land. Pending the said suit, on the application made by
the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the impugned order of payment
of maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month has been passed.

¶20

3.The Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submitted that the Petitioner is willing to hand over one
of the house properties to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. He
submitted that most of the suit properties are not the

¶21

joint family properties but they are the self acquired
properties. He submitted that the Petitioner-father-in-law
is an old person and has no source of income. He submitted
that there is nothing on record to show that the jewellery
business is ancestral property.

¶22

4.I have given careful consideration to the

¶23

submissions. Out of the suit properties, five house
properties are situated in the city of Kolhapur. In
respect of the some of the properties, a contention has

¶24

been raised that the same are not the ancestral properties
but they are self acquired properties of the Petitioner.

¶25

All the suit properties are not self acquired properties.
Considering the nature of the suit properties and the fact
that the widow of the deceased son of the Petitioner has

¶26

no income, the Petitioner has been directed to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent No.1. The

¶27

SRJ 3 wp-10315-09.sxw

¶28

claim of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is for possession of
their separate share in all the suit properties. The
Petitioner cannot offer one property of his choice to the
1st and 2nd Respondents. This is not a case for interference
under article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶29

5. Writ Petition is rejected.

¶30

6. Hearing of the suit is expedited.

Dattatraya Ganpati Thorat v. Ashwini Mahesh Thorat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Ganpati Thorat v. Ashwini Mahesh Thorat 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

Shalan Dhondiram Dengre Vs Arvind @ Baban Vitthal Lokande

Mohamed Harutt Chandsab Bogwan Vs Abubakar Ismail Khatik

Krishnaji Vishnu Prabhune (Decd.)by Lrs.- Kusum Krishanji Prabhune and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pralhad Siddhu Ghodake Vs Dattatraya Govind Aapake and Ors.

Natwarlal Vitthaldas Doshi Vs Laxmandas Vitthaldas Doshi and Ors.

Ramesh Megji Jhaveri Vs Genesis Management Consultancy Services Private Limited and Ors.