Disposed

Unmesh Ganesh Desai v. Shardul @ Shamika Unmesh Desai and ANR24

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012APPR/36/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought deletion of a specific observation in an impugned order which stated the applicant admitted income exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. The court deleted the incorrect observation and substituted text reflecting the actual income figures derived from salary slips.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of the observation stating admitted income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh; substitution with correct income figures based on salary slips.

Unmesh Ganesh Desai Vs Shardul @ Shamika Unmesh Desai… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

appr - 36/12

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

CRIM. REVISION APPL. NO. 489 OF 2011

Unmesh Ganesh Desai.

..Applicant.

Versus

Mrs. Shardul @ Shamika Unmesh Desai and Another.

¶12

..Respondents.

¶13

Mr. Prakash Naik for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Chavan a/w Mr. T.B.Nikam for R-1. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for the State.

¶14

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 14, 2012 .

¶15

P. C. :

¶16

This application is taken out for modification of the

¶17

order dated 17^th January 2012 passed in above revision. By the said order, the revision filed by the applicant came to be dismissed.

¶18

It is the contention of the applicant that the

¶19

-: 2 :-

¶20

appr - 36/12

¶21

observations of this Court in the order dated 17^th January 2012 in paragraph no.4 to the effect that “admittedly, the applicant’s income is more than lakhs of rupees” is incorrect. He submitted that the applicant never admitted that his income is more than Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, by this application, applicant seeks deletion of the said reference to the applicant’s admission about his income being more than Rs. 1 lakh per month.

¶22

Perusal of the order impugned in the said revision makes it clear that it was the contention of the respondent – wife that applicant is earning Rs.60,000/- per month and his aggregate income if Rs.1 lakh. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of record, recorded a finding that gross income of the applicant is Rs.40,560/- per month.

¶23

In above facts and circumstances, the observations in the order dated 17^th January 2012 recording that “admittedly applicant’s income is more than lakhs of rupees” is deleted and following line shall be substituted in its place.

¶24

-: 3 :-

¶25

appr - 36/12

¶26

“According to the respondent, applicant’s aggregate income is Rs.1 lakh per month, however, salary slip discloses his gross income to be Rs.40,560/- per month.”

¶27

Application stands disposed of.

¶28

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Unmesh Ganesh Desai v. Shardul @ Shamika Unmesh Desai and ANR24

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unmesh Ganesh Desai v. Shardul @ Shamika Unmesh Desai and ANR24

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

Ashirwad Charitable Trust Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kalpesh Jayantilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Khitindra Syam and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Jayaram Balaram Patil Vs Devidas Naga Patil and Ors.

Nelson Alber D'Cruz @ Nanha Vs State of Maharashtr and Ors.

Shahabuddin Rahiman Mujawar Vs Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank and Anr.