Dismissed

Shri Sachin S/O Digambar Kshirsagar v. Smt. Mohini W/O Sachin Kshirsagar and Another

Bombay HC16 Oct 2012REVN/65/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application challenging an interim maintenance order. The Court found the applicant had avoided participating in the Family Court trial and held that no order was necessary in the revision, directing him to appear before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The application is dismissed and the applicant is directed to appear before the Family Court to participate in the main hearing regarding the maintenance quantum.

Shri Sachin S/O Digambar Kshirsagar Vs Smt. Mohini… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 revn65.11.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 65 OF 2011

¶4

(SACHIN DIGAMBAR KSHIRSAGAR..VS.. SMT. MOHINI SACHIN KSHIRSAGAR AND ANR.)

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2012.

¶8

Heard Mr.V.J.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr A.C.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶9

The applicant has challenged interim order of maintenance passed by learned Family court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Nagpur. During pendency of the said petition an interim order has been passed by the learned Family court by which the applicant has been directed to pay rupees fifteen thousand per month to respondent No.1 and rupees ten thousand per month to respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is wife and respondent No.2 is daughter of the applicant.

¶10

It is submitted by Mr. Deshpande that the applicant is working in US and that his monthly income is not more than rupees one lac fifty thousand and that the interim order is too harsh to be sustained.

¶11

Learned counsel Mr. Dharmadhikari has submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents have categorically stated that the monthly income of the petitioner is rupees six lacs. This is stated by the respondents before the Family court and evidence in respect of that has already been tendered. The examination in chief of respondent No.1 is over.

¶12

2 revn65.11.odt

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant has never participated in the proceedings before the trial Court and has always avoided to participate effectively in the proceedings. It is submitted by Mr. Dharmadhikari that the applicant's tendency is to protract the hearing of the petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

After having gone through the record of the present application and the record of Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2011, I find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Dharmadhikari.

¶15

Without going into the merits of the case, what is necessary to be repeated here is that the examination in chief of respondent No.1 is over. The respondents have closed their case. The applicant, admittedly, has not participated during the course of recording of evidence. This shows that he is not interested in effective hearing of the case. In any event, it is for the trial Court to decide, on appreciation of the evidence, as to whether how much amount of maintenance should be ordered to be paid by the applicant to the respondents. Since the hearing is nearing finality and the matter is likely to be decided within a few days, there is no point in passing any order in the present application. The best course open to the applicant is to appear before the trial Court and make appropriate application for participating in the hearing of maintenance application. The trial Court will decide the prayer of the applicant, if any, on merits. This application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

RRaut..

Shri Sachin S/O Digambar Kshirsagar v. Smt. Mohini W/O Sachin Kshirsagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sachin S/O Digambar Kshirsagar v. Smt. Mohini W/O Sachin Kshirsagar 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

Dhiraj S/O Milindrao Thool and Anr. Vs Sau. Swati W/O Dhiraj Thool

Sanjay @ Monu S/O Durgashankar Thakur and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Police Station Nandanwan, Nagpur

Umesh S/O Tulsiram Pihulkar (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Asegaon, Ps Asegaon, Tq Mangrulpir Distt Washim

Dr. Masroor W/O Dr. Shahid Rizwan and 2 Others Vs Dr. Shahid Rizwan Khan S/O Mohd. Ibrahim

Santosh S/O Hansaraj Yadav Vs Sau. Sheetal W/O Santosh Yadav and Anr.

Maroti Mahadeo Khiratkar Vs the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. A.C.B.