Dismissed

Shashikala Yadav v. Amarkant B Yadav and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Nov 2012WP/3018/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order refusing maintenance. The bench observed both parties are teachers with salaries, live together, and had already allocated education expenses among themselves. The petition was dismissed while directing the husband to make safe investments.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition; direction to the husband to make safe investments in banks or government bonds.

Shashikala Yadav Vs Amarkant B Yadav and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) (2) WP 3018/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3018 OF 2012

¶5

Shashikala Yadav .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Amarkant Yadav & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mrs. Sharmila U. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Seth for Respondent No.1. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the Respondent-State

¶9

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 30th NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The petitioner-wife has challenged the order of the learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Mumbai dated 18^th July, 2012 rejecting her application for maintenance. Both the husband and wife are teachers. Both earn salary. Both have several deductions therefrom. The wife's gross salary is Rs.32,610/- and after deductions, including a deduction for a loan, her net salary is Rs.14, 749/-. The husband's gross salary is Rs.26,300/- and after deductions, including deduction of several loans taken for other investments, his net salary is Rs.11,544/-.

¶12

The wife is stated to be earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. by way of licensee in a flat of MHADA. Though the parties live in one room with loft, 1 bedroom flat has been purchased. The parties had not shifted. Their flat is in the name of the wife. Hence the husband's contention that she earns Rs.15,000/- from the licensee in respect of that flat stands to reason and has been rightly accepted by the learned Judge.

¶13

The wife claims that aside from the deductions in her salary

¶14

(2) (2) WP 3018/12

¶15

there are deductions of EMIs for another loan taken by her from LIC. The wife has not shown the loan taken from LIC as also in the society. She has shown the EMIs deducted only. This aspect would have to be considered in the trial. Pending that the learned Judge's conclusion that her net salary is as shown in her salary sheet cannot be outright rejected as wholly erroneous. The amount of deductions are almost commensurate with the amount earned by her from the license of another flat.

¶16

The husband claims that he spends for the household expenses for eatable as also for purchase of wearing apparel for the wife and children. These are the usual expenses.

¶17

The parties have 3 children. They are in standards X, VIII and I. The husband must contribute for the education of at least two children. The wife must look after at least one child.

¶18

The husband agrees to pay the school fees for the second child and the third child in the schools in which they are attending at present. The wife agrees to pay the school fees of the first child.

¶19

The wife has paid the tuition fees for the first child for standard X. The husband agrees to pay the tuition fees for the second child who is now in standard VIII and later for the third child either in the same class or in any class closer to the residence.

¶20

The husband agrees to continue to pay the day to day expenses for food for the family. Subject to the above modification, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶21

(3) (2) WP 3018/12

¶22

The parties live under one roof with their 3 children. The parties do not have any grave disputes and differences except that the husband has recklessly and unwisely invested and lost large amounts. The husband would now see reason after several failures. He is directed to make safe investments in banks or government bonds. It would be more appropriate that the parties iron out their differences amongst themselves without recourse to a Court of law to lead a happy married life.

¶23

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Shashikala Yadav v. Amarkant B Yadav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala Yadav v. Amarkant B Yadav and Anr.

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

Smt. Saroj M. Bijlani and 2 Ors. Vs Chandru G. Bijlani and 9 Ors.

Smt. Saroj M. Bijlani and 2 Ors. Vs Chandru G. Bijlani and 9 Ors.

Smt. Saroj M. Bijlani and 2 Ors. Vs Chandru G. Bijlani and 9 Ors.

Mrs. Neha Vishal Bajla Vs Vishal Ajay Bajla and Ors.

Shri. Rakesh B. Shah Vs Smt. Brinda Rakesh Shah

Jay Vinay Doshi Vs Priyanka Gandhi Doshi