Dismissed

Satish Janardhan Thakur (Gaikwad) v. Sucheta @ Jaya Satish Thakur (Gaikwad)

Bombay HC17 Mar 2011WP/1183/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Writ Petition challenging the maintenance order passed by the Civil Judge Solapur granting interim maintenance of Rs.3,000 to the respondent during the pendency of the judicial separation petition. The High Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed at the stage of admission; no order as to costs.

Satish Janardhan Thakur (Gaikwad) Vs Sucheta @ Jaya… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2011)

cwp-1183-11=.sxw

: 1 :

USJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1183 OF 2011

¶6

Satish Janardan Thakur (Gaikwad) .. Petitioner (Orig. Applicant)

¶7

v/s.

¶8

Sucheta @ Jaya Satish Thakur (Gaikwad) .. Respondet

¶9

(Orig. Opponent)

¶10

Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni for the petitioner

¶11

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 17^th MARCH, 2011

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition for judicial separation in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Solapur (hereinafter referred to as the said Court). In the said petition the respondent has filed an application at Exh.27 for interim maintenance. That application has been decided by the learned II^nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Solapur. By order dated 3^rd December, 2010 learned Judge has granted maintenance to the respondent in the sum of Rs.3,000/- from the day of the application at Exh.27 till the disposal of the petition.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that his income is in the vicinity of Rs.19,000/-. He stated across the bar that he is

¶15

: 2 : cwp-1183-11=.sxw

¶16

taking care of two sons as well as the respondent. According to the petitioner, respondent is residing in the house where the petitioner is staying.

¶17

Learned Judge while deciding the application at Exh. 27 rightly considered the requirement of the respondent and has rightly noted the income of the petitioner and has properly arrived at the figure of maintenance of Rs.3,000/-. Merely because the respondent is staying in the very house where the petitioner is staying, it cannot be observed that the quantum of maintenance is on the higher side. Surely, if at all, the petitioner wants that respondent should stay away, he will have to shell out some more amount to see that accommodation is secured for the respondent.

¶18

After taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is residing in the same house where the petitioner is residing, the learned Judge has fixed the figure of Rs.3,000/-. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, following order is passed. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Satish Janardhan Thakur (Gaikwad) v. Sucheta @ Jaya Satish Thakur (Gaikwad)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Janardhan Thakur (Gaikwad) v. Sucheta @ Jaya Satish Thakur (Gaikwad)

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

Hutoxi Adi Kapadia Nee Hutoxi Framroze Buhariwalla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxmi Yashwant Yelve Vs ................................

Vijay Bahadur Mewalal Bind Vs Ushadevi Vijay Bahadur Bind

Kanta Tejas Maun Vs Tejas Kaubhai Maun

Ravi Rakesh Agrawal Vs Kavita Ravi Agrawal

Prema Prakash Pushpala Vs Prakash Sriamalu Pushpala