Dismissed

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam and Ors. v. Shubhangi Rajratna Kadam and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2013REVN/57/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application, the Bombay High Court dismissed the challenge against a judicial magistrate's order granting the wife rent and alternative accommodation under the D.V. Act. The court held that the order was not faulty as the husband's claim of low income was prima facie untenable pending the main trial's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision application stands dismissed. The impugned order of the learned Magistrate is not faulted and requires no interference.

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam and Ors. Vs Shubhangi… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

CR.REVN.APLN.57/12(3)

¶2

¶3

mnm

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2012

¶6

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam & Ors. Vs. Subhangi Rajratna Kadam & Ors.

¶7

...Applicants ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for Applicants Ms. Soniya Maskin for Respondent No.1 Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State

¶9

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 1^ST MARCH, 2013

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This application challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khadki, Pune dated 18^th July, 2011 granting the respondent wife Rs.5000/- p.m by way of rent payable by the petitioner husband.

¶12

The parties were married in 2009. The wife filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in 2010. The husband filed a petition for judicial separation in 2010. The wife made an application for interim maintenance in the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- came to be granted. That amount is not challenged, that amount is paid.

¶13

Thereafter the wife applied for relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) in the Court of the learned Magistrate. She applied for rent and

¶14

CR.REVN.APLN.57/12(3)

¶15

¶16

deposit for taking a premises. The maintenance amount was considered upon the fact that the wife lived in her parents' residence at that time. The wife's father is government servant, he lived in government quarters. He has since retired the quarters will have to be vacated. The wife cannot live with her father. Hence the husband must make provisions for alternative accommodation for the wife. Pending her petition for restitution of conjugal rights and petition for judicial separation, the wife is not permitted to enter into the husband's home. The husband claims that she has left voluntarily. That aspect would have to be decided in the trial.

¶17

The learned Judge has seen the income of the husband as also status of the husband.

¶18

The wife has stated that the husband's family has two flats. One flat being 601 has been transferred by the husband in the name of his sister just prior to the petition. However the husband continues in possession. That aspect has been stated by the wife and considered in the impugned order. The other flat is in the name of his mother. Despite these residences, in view of the dispute, the wife has not been able to live in either of the flats. She must await the decision in trial to be granted or refused her right to residence in those flats. Pending that petition she would live with her father initially. Upon the father's retirement she would require another residence.

¶19

The husband claims that he earns Rs.11000/-. Mr.

¶20

3 CR.REVN.APLN.57/12(3)

¶21

Warunjikar argued that that is an admitted amount. The admission is not shown. Counsel on behalf of the wife has refuted that case. The wife's Advocate has submitted that the husband has not produced his salary slips. He has only produced bank papers. The husband has produced only a copy of appointment letter and his employers certificate. He has not produced salary slips. The petition is filed in February 2011. The bank account produced by the husband petitioner before this Court is from April, 2011.

¶22

The wife would be entitled to a residence which is a precise statutory relief to be granted by the Magistrate's Court under the D.V. Act for such wives who have no place of residence pending their petitions and in case of disputes which would have to be decided only at the trial.

¶23

The trial is in progress. The wife is under cross examination. The precise reliefs to be granted to the wife shall be by way of her matrimonial home or by way of an alternative premises would be decided in the main petition. Pending that petition the husband's case that he earns only Rs.11,000/- and hence cannot pay Rs.9000/- to the wife has been prima facie seen to be without merit. The merit is not shown even before this Court. Hence the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted and does not require to be interfered.

¶24

The criminal revision application stands dismissed.

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam and Ors. v. Shubhangi Rajratna Kadam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam and Ors. v. Shubhangi Rajratna Kadam and Anr.

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

Narendra Singh Mansingh Rao and Ors. Vs the State of Maharasthtra and Anr.

Dr Jaydeep Rasiklal Gandhi Vs Sumati Dhiraj Joshi and Anr.

Mr Nirmal Nandkumar Sanganee and Ors. Vs Mrs. Neha Nirmal Sanganee and Anr.

Mr. Goldie Parshotam Sud Vs Mr. Ajit Sawant and Anr.

Olice Johnson Dsouza @ Olive Machado Dsouza Vs Johnson Pascol Dsouza and Ors.

Afrin Iqbal Aga Vs Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga and Anr.