Dismissed

Manish Chhotelal Sharma v. Payal Manish Sharma

Bombay HC10 Aug 2011WP/543/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an interim maintenance order granting Rs. 5,000 to a child. The court held the husband, knowing his salary, must prove it under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. His late submission of salary slips was rejected. The interim order was upheld due to lack of fresh evidence from the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall pay the interim maintenance as directed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, and may file an affidavit later for final determination.

1.The Petitioner husband has challenged the order of interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai to his child on 20th August, 2008. Both the husband and wife are earning. Both have to shoulder the responsibility and the duty for the maintenance, education and upbringing of their child. The Petitioner-husband is the only person who has knowledge of his own salary. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act it is only he who has to prove his salary by producing his salary slips showing his salary from month to month over a period of time. [See.Murugesam Pillai Vs. Manickavasaka Pandara J.C. 1917 Indian Appeals 98 (Vol. 44)at page 103, Rameshwar Singh Vs. Bajit Lal Pathak AIR 1929 PC 95, Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel Vs. Maniben AIR 1985 Gujarat 187, Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta AIR 1988 Calcutta 98, Tabassum

Shaikh Vs. Shaikh S.J. Shaikh I (2000) DMC 95 and Haseena Vs. Abdul Jaleel II(2007) DMC 215, ]. The Petitioner-husband replied to the application for interim maintenance. He did not produce the salary slips. The learned Judge had no alternative but to assume a reasonable salary from the facts stated by the wife. The Petitioner has now produced certain salary slips in this Writ Petition. His new evidence cannot be looked into to challenge that order. The impugned order is correct from the material on record placed before the learned Judge and therefore cannot be interfered with in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

2.The Petitioner shall pay the maintenance as directed. The Petitioner shall be entitled to file his further affidavit or his affidavit of examination- in-chief showing the salary actually received by the Petitioner from month to month to determine the final amount of maintenance.

Manish Chhotelal Sharma v. Payal Manish Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Chhotelal Sharma v. Payal Manish Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Bldrs.(P) Ltd. Vs Chunibhai Kilachand.

Themis Chemicals Limited. Vs Indo-French Time Industries Limited.

Amol Madhukar Hindalekar Vs Mugdha Amol Hindalekar

Manish Chhotelal Sharma Vs Payal Manish Sharma

Swti , Bal Vikas Vs Emanuele Edoardo Gazzotti and Daniela Turchetti

Mohmed Alim Mohmed Shafi . Vs Mahmood Alli Borkar