The High Court of Bombay dismisseda writ petition challenging an interim maintenance order dated 19th July 2010. The court held that maintaining the grant from the order date was valid under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. given the dispute on marriage and found the quantum adequate.
Petition dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.
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.
WP 3.11.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3 OF 2011
Mrs. Jyoti Santosh Nair.
... Petitioner.
V/s.
Mr. Santosh Nair and Anr.
... Respondents.
Mr. Shashank C. Thatte for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Vernekar for the Respondents.
CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J.
DATED : 7th MARCH 2011.
P.C. :-
The Petitioner – wife has been granted maintenance pursuant to order dated 19th July 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai in Interim Application No. 196 of 2008. Learned Judge has directed the payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- for the Petitioner and her two children from the date of the order.
2
WP 3.11.sxw
(R.Y. GANOO, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether maintenance should be granted retrospectively from the date of application.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded is inadequate.
Whether the dispute regarding the validity of marriage justifies refusing retrospective maintenance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Y. GANOO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
