Dismissed

Babaram Chikne v. Jayashree Babaram Chikne and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2013REVN/160/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application and a related stay application filed by a husband to quash a Family Court maintenance order. The court held that the application was filed simplicitor without prosecution, lack of supporting documents, and excessive delay, sustaining the maintenance decree.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application and the stay application are dismissed.

Babaram Chikne Vs Jayashree Babaram Chikne and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1) (7) Revn 160/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2012

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2012

Babaram Chikne

.. Applicant

Vs.

Jayashree Babaram Chikne & Anr. .. Respondents

¶11

Ms. Sunita Khamkar i/b Mr. Sameer Tendulkar for the Applicant. None for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2013.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This application has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 28^th June, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Mumbai granting maintenance of Rs.3,500/- to the respondent-wife. This application has been filed on 7^th March, 2012. The application has not yet been served. Various dates are given by the department for service. These are on 03.05.2012, 18.06.2012, 11.07.2012, 09.08.2012, 10.09.2012, 08.10.2012, 31.10.2012, 26.11.2012, 10.12.2012. This shows that the matter was kept for admission on the aforesaid various dates. Thereafter the matter was sent to Court. It has been stood over till today.

¶15

It may be mentioned that the order which is challenged is an order of a paltry amount of maintenance of Rs.3,500/-. It has been granted to a wife who has been deserted by her husband after begetting 5 children. At that time the wife was 48 years old and the husband was 52 years old. At least one of their children has been married. The wife upon being deserted had to make ends meet by hard work. She had to be supported by her

¶16

(2) (7) Revn 160/12

¶17

mother. The husband failed to remain present after the trial Court effected service. Consequently the order came to be passed.

¶18

The husband applied for setting aside that order in the Family Court itself. By order dated 3^rd January, 2012 his application has been dismissed with costs because no case for setting aside the order was made out. The husband claimed to be ill but produced no documents. He claimed not to have been intimated about the date of hearing but did not show what appropriate steps he took after the interview with the Counsellor when the petition was kept on board. He had withdrawn certain consent terms filed by the parties. He thereafter did not appear.

¶19

The order of interim maintenance would have to be obeyed, failing which the wife would be constrained to have the order executed. The husband filed this petition since 7^th March, 2012 and did not take any steps for getting the matter placed on board for admission. Consequently the aforesaid dates have been given by the office of the Registrar General.

¶20

It is common practice, and now common knowledge that parties abuse the right of filing a writ petition or a criminal revision application by simplicitor filing such an application and not applying for and obtaining stay of the application and not prosecuting the application even for its admission. This is one stark case of that nature. The application has remained on board for the last 10 months.

¶21

The applicants in such case simplicitor informs the trial Court that the criminal revision application or the writ petition is filed and pending and hence seeks to circumvent the execution of the orders or judgments. That abuse cannot be countenanced by the Court. In this case the impugned

¶22

(3) (7) Revn 160/12

¶23

order is not even annexed to the application. It was tendered by Counsel on behalf of the applicant.

¶24

Counsel on behalf of the applicant simplicitor applied for time on the ground that certain documents are not filed. In fact, no document is filed or annexed with the application. Payment of Rs.3,500/- is a rather than paltry amount for a wife who has begotten 5 children for the applicant. The applicant cannot be granted any further time. The applicant has not made out any case for order on merits. In view of undue delay in prosecuting his own application, the application is dismissed.

¶25

Criminal Application No. 163 of 2012 taken out for the stay of the application is dismissed as infructuous.

¶26

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Babaram Chikne v. Jayashree Babaram Chikne and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babaram Chikne v. Jayashree Babaram Chikne 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

Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Vs Sachin S. Dgare and Ors. and Shivo T. Rohra and 2 Ors.

Jaswinder Paul Batra and Ors. Vs Ram Singh Batra and Ors.

Mary Aranha @ Apoline Maria Paul Arnha Vs Paul Aranha

Anagha Ajay More Vs Ajay Pandurang More

Babaram Chikne Vs Jayashree Babaram Chikne and Anr.

Sundeep Sharad Balhal Vs Mrs. Praniti Balhal Alias Mrs. Praniti Arunrao Ramdas and Ors.