Dismissed

Shri. Sanjib Gupta v. Mrs. Vivekita Gupta

Bombay HC19 Jun 2013CAS/1621/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought a stay of execution on a maintenance order of Rs. 8000/month for his daughter. The court noted the daughter is a major with growing needs and the order was not stayed during the lower appeal. The application failed as no prima facie case for interim relief was made out and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for stay of execution of the maintenance order dismissed; costs in cause.

Shri. Sanjib Gupta Vs Mrs. Vivekita Gupta — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Tapadia RR

¶2

1 / 3 cas/1621/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1621 OF 2012 IN

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.931 OF 2012

Shri Sanjib Gupta

..Applicant

Mrs Vivekita Gupta

.. Respondent

Mr.Sajal Biswas, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Sandesh Patil , Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 19/06/2013

¶12

PC:

¶13

Not on Board. Mentioned due to urgency. Hence, taken up in production Board.

¶14

Heard Mr. Sajal Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Sandesh Patil, learned counsel for the respondent at length.

¶15

Rule. Mr. Sandesh Patil waives service. At the request and by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and the application is taken up for final hearing.

¶16

By this application, the applicant has prayed for stay of execution and operation of the impugned Judgment and decree dated 18.1.2012 passed by the learned District Judge6, Thane in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2009. By that order, the learned District Judge dismissed the Appeal preferred by the

¶17

2 / 3 cas/1621/2012

¶18

applicant in so far as directing to pay Rs.8000/- per month towards maintenance for his daughter Almitra from the date of the order.

¶19

4 In support of this application, Mr Biswas submitted that Almitra is now major and, therefore, there is no question of paying maintenance under section 3(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Ac,1956. He further submitted that the applicant is unable to pay maintenance and that he is ailing from high diabetes and other related health problems. The applicant being a senior citizen, finds it difficult to maintain himself from his freelancing income and his income is hardly sufficient even to meet his day to day expenses.

¶20

It is not in dispute that by the Judgment and order dated 20.1.2009, the learned trial Judge directed the applicant to pay Rs.8000/- per month towards maintenance for his daughter. It is also not in dispute that aggrieved by this decision the applicant preferred Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge and during pendency of the appeal, no interim order was operating in his favour. In other words, the order dated 20.1.2009 was not stayed during pendency of the appeal. Mr. Patil submits that the applicant is in arrears of maintenance of approximately Rs. Three lacs. He further

¶21

3 / 3 cas/1621/2012

¶22

submitted that Almitra is major and having regard to her growing needs, it cannot be said that the maintenance awarded is exorbitant.

¶23

Having regard to the fact that there was no stay during pendency of the appeal and having further due regard to growing needs of Almitra, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance @ Rs.8000/- per month to Almitra is exorbitant. Prima fact, the Courts below, after considering the financial capacity of the applicant, fixed maintenance at Rs.8000/- per month. Taking over all view of the matter, I do not find that the applicant has made out a case for grant of interim relief. In the result, the application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Costs in cause.

Shri. Sanjib Gupta v. Mrs. Vivekita Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sanjib Gupta v. Mrs. Vivekita Gupta

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

Shri Anant Vithal Revadekar Vs Shri Shridhar Sitaram Tikale

Narendra Hari Patil Vs Moreshwar Hari Patil

Bhimrao Baburao Nandurkar Vs Mangal Bhimrao Nandurkar

Shankar Dhondu Walkar (Dec.Thr. LRS.)1. Sunita Shankar Walkar and Ors. Vs 1. Narayan Vinayak Joshi (Dece Thr.Lrs) 1a. Govind N. Joshi and Ors.

Shankar Dhondu Walkar (Dec.Thr. LRS.)1. Sunita Shankar Walkar and Ors. Vs 1. Narayan Vinayak Joshi (Dece Thr.Lrs) 1a. Govind N. Joshi and Ors.

Balu Shankar Waje Vs Vishnu Murlidhar Waje