Partly allowed

Vishveshwar S/O Raobaji Nikhare and One v. Smt. Jankubai Wd/O Raobaji Nikhare and Another

Bombay HC23 Oct 2012REVN/44/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Nagpur Bench Criminal Revision modifies Family Court maintenance order under s. 125 Cr.P.C. to Rs. 800 per month each, effective May 1st, 2012, acknowledging appellants' poverty and respondent 2's care of mother.

What did the court decide?

Appellants pay Rs. 800/month to Respondent 1 effective May 1st, 2012. Revision disposed of.

Vishveshwar S/O Raobaji Nikhare and One Vs Smt… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/3

¶2

23.10.revn.44.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 44 /2012

¶5

(1) Vishveshwar Nikhare and another VS. Smt. Jankubai Niokhare and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Shri Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants Shri R M Daruwala, Advocate for respondent1 and 2

¶8

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 23rd October, 2012.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The respondent is the mother of the applicants. The Respondent No.1 had filed an Application before the Family Court for grant of maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. Said Application was granted by order dated 1^st February, 2012. The order was passed against the applicant nos.1 and 2 and their brother, namely, Wasudeo Raobaji Nikhare. The applicant nos.1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- each, per month and said Wasudeo Nikhare, who is brother of the applicants, was directed to pay R.1,000/- per month to the respondent no.1. Said Wasudeo Nikhare had been arraigned as respondent no.2 in the present Revision Application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondent no.2-Wasudeo is

¶12

2/3

¶13

23.10.revn.44.12

¶14

instigating the respondent no.1 to initiate proceedings against the applicants. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 is an old lady and she has been provided accommodation by respondent no.2. As far as her needs are concerned, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 1500/- will be sufficient for maintenance of the respondent no.1. Both the applicants are present before this Court. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants, after taking instructions from the applicants that the applicants are ready to pay Rs. 800/- each, per month to the respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the applicants will take care of other needs like medicines etc. of the respondent no.1 if the occasion arises.

¶15

After having gone through the record and proceedings and after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is every possibility that the respondent no.2 is instigating the respondent no.1 to initiate proceedings against the applicants. It cannot be ignored that the respondent no.1 is mother of both the applicants and both the applicants have stated before this Court that they will take care of the their mother even if there is no order of the Court.

¶16

At this stage, it may be noted here that the applicants have not paid the maintenance amount as per the order passed by the Family Court. They are in arrears

¶17

3/3

¶18

23.10.revn.44.12

¶19

of maintenance as they were unable to pay due to poor financial condition.. They have started paying from the month of May 2012. Since the respondent no.1 was staying with the respondent no.2 who is son of respondent no.1 and brother of applicant nos. 1 and 2, he was also equally under obligation to take care of his mother. It appears that the respondent no.2 has taken care of his mother during pendency of the maintenance application and this Revision Application The arrears, if any, now paid by the applicant nos.1 and 2 will obviously go to the pocket of respondent no.2. This is not the purpose of the present proceedings. Since the respondent no.1. was being taken care of by the respondent no.2, I am of the view that the order of maintenance shall be made effective from 1^st of May, 2012. Hence I pass the following order:

¶20

The Revision Application is partly allowed. The order passed by the Family Court against the the applicants is modified as under :

¶21

The applicant nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 800/(Rupees eight hundred) each, per month, to the respondent no.1. This order shall be effective from 1^st May 2012. Criminal Application stands disposed of.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

sahare

Vishveshwar S/O Raobaji Nikhare and One v. Smt. Jankubai Wd/O Raobaji Nikhare and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishveshwar S/O Raobaji Nikhare and One v. Smt. Jankubai Wd/O Raobaji Nikhare and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh S/O Rushi Vairagade Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Virur Distt Chandrapur

Shreedevi Boddu Thimmaiah, Managing Director Sreee Devi Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Station House Officer Police Staion Sonegaon and Another

Chotu @ Sushil Shalikram Mokalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O.

Prashant Panjabrao Murade Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Loni Distt Amravati

Bandu @ Daulat S/O Gulabrao Itankar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Gumgaon Distt Nagpur

Sitaram S/O Dashrath Nandanwar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Khapa, Distt Nagpur