Dismissed

Sudhakar Bhagwan Pusawale v. Nishgandha Sudhakar Pusawale

Bombay HC22 Apr 2010WP/1110/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a writ petition challenging an interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Upholding the trial court's award of Rs. 5,000 monthly, it noted the petitioner's income from transport business and salary made the award reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Writ Petition rejected; interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/month upheld.

Sudhakar Bhagwan Pusawale Vs Nishgandha Sudhakar… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1110 OF 2010

¶5

Mr. Sudhakar Bhagwan Pusawale

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Mrs. Nishgandha Sudhakar Pusawale ..Respondent

¶9

Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh i/b.Mr.Ajay A. Joshi, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Vishal Tambat, Advocate, for the Respondent

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22ND APRIL, 2010

¶11

P.C.

¶12

. The Petitioner – husband has challenged an interim

¶13

Order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by which he has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/per month to the Respondent – wife. The said Order has been passed on the Petition for divorce filed by the Respondent – wife. On the basis of documents produced from R.T.O office, two findings have been recorded by the learned Judge. The first finding is that the Petitioner is holding four vehicles and three of which have been registered for transport business.

¶14

¶15

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

¶16

invited my attention to the alleged Certificate filed by the employer of the Petitioner stating therein that the Petitioner is merely working as a delivery boy drawing a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. He stated that Certificate of the employer shows that the Petitioner has taken advance of Rs.1,14,000/-. He stated that the income of the Petitioner shown in the income tax returns is Rs.1,13,400/-. The Petitioner is required to repay the loan taken for acquiring the vehicles. He stated that out of the said vehicles, one was required to be sold for meeting the medical expenses of the Respondent. He submitted that it was the Respondent who forced the Petitioner to purchase the vehicles.

¶17

Even if the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner are accepted as it is, what is borne out from the record is that there were four vehicles standing in the name of the Petitioner and at least two vehicles are available to the Petitioner even as of today. Thus, the Petitioner has income from the transport business apart from

¶18

¶19

the salary of Rs.4,500/- per month which he is drawing. The net profit from business shown in the last income tax return of the business is of Rs.1,13,400/-. This is apart from salary received by the Petitioner.

¶20

In the circumstances, maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- fixed by the trial Court is reasonable and no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction.

¶21

Petition is rejected.

Sudhakar Bhagwan Pusawale v. Nishgandha Sudhakar Pusawale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Bhagwan Pusawale v. Nishgandha Sudhakar Pusawale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalini Suresh Jadhav Vs Anandrao Mugutrao Jadhav and Ors.

Mt. J.K. Mamdyal Vs Allabaksh H. Maniyar and Anr.

Pundlik Tukaram Satam Vs Seema Narayan Satam and Anr.

Raghunath Khevaji Jambukar and Ors. Vs Pandurang Khevaji Jambukar and Anr.

Vilas Bharat Dhamne and Anr. Vs Hiravati Jairampant Lagad

Anwar Abdul Kadar Motiwala Vs Iqbal Ishaq Sharif