Disposed

Namdeo Balu Wathore v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC25 Nov 2013APPLN/1822/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a continuation application seeking modification of an earlier order awarding maintenance. The court addressed contentions regarding stalled pension benefits but ultimately disposed of the application without substantive interference in the earlier award.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application was disposed of.

Namdeo Balu Wathore Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1822/2013
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.955/2012

¶6

(Namdeo s/o Balu Wathore Vs. The State of Mah.& Anr.)

¶7

Office Notes, office Memoranda of

¶8

Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or Directions and Registrar’s orders

¶9

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶10

Mr.AH Kasliwal, Advocate for applicant/s; Mrs.BB Gunjal,APP for State.

¶11

Mr.BR Loya, Adv. For Resp.No.2.

¶12

¶13

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL J
DATE :25th November, 2013.

¶14

1) Heard.

¶15

2) Modification of order dated 1^st March, 2013 passed in Cri.WP No.955/2012, is sought.

¶16

3) In criminal writ petition No.955/2012, on 1st

¶17

March, 2013, learned Counsel for the applicant
– Namdeo and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 – Kalawati were extensively heard and
this Court did not interfere with award of
maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- a month. The reasons
are elaborately indicated.

¶18

4) Learned Counsel for applicant- Namdeo says,
that retiral benefits are stalled and
consequently, the petitioner is not in a
position to release the money. He invited my
attention to page 15, which is a letter dated
2nd July, 2010, received from Medical Officer.
However, reading the letter from any corner,
it will not infuse any energy to accept the
contention of applicant- Namdeo about stalling
of pensionary benefits at the behest of his

¶19

¶20

wife – Kalawati.

¶21

5) Learned Counsel for the respondent/wife says, applicant – Namdeo has received pensionary benefits around Rs.12,00,000/-, which has been suppressed from this Court. For such purposes, he has tendered a copy of letter dated 21.2.2012, which is taken on record.

¶22

6) If the situation, as engrafted in Section 127 Cr.P.C. subsists in favour of applicant – Namdeo, he is at liberty to exhaust such remedies before learned JMFC, Ahmedpur.

¶23

7) Criminal Application No.1822/2013 disposed of.

¶24

(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
 JUDGE

¶25

bdv/

Namdeo Balu Wathore v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdeo Balu Wathore v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Rajabhau @ Rajendra Digambar Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajabhau @ Rajendra Digambar Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Balkrishna Kulkarni and Others. Vs the State of Maharashatra and Others.

Anjala Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah Vs Union of India and Anr.

K.M. Shankarnarayan Shetty Vs Sadashiv B, Nigayya Shetty and Anr.