Allowed

Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors. v. Prakash Nagardas Dubal Shaha and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2013REVN/79/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition addressed a dispute over maintenance orders. The High Court held that pending divorce proceedings did not bar a wife from seeking maintenance under the D.V. Act, especially given the husband's remarriage causing mental agony. The Sessions Court's view was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order of the learned Sessions Court setting aside the Magistrate's maintenance order is set aside. The Magistrate's order is confirmed, and the husband is directed to continue paying maintenance.

Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors. Vs Prakash Nagardas… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

REVN.79/2012

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 79 OF 2012

¶6

Meena Prakash Dubal Shah & Ors. Vs.

¶7

Prakash nagardas Dubal Shah & Ors.

¶8

...Applicants

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Ms. Jaymala Ostwal i/b. M/s. J.J. Associates for the Applicants None for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 24^TH JANUARY, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The petitioner wife who was married to respondent No.1 husband had filed certain matrimonial proceedings in the Family Court. There was certain negotiations between the parties. However, they did not fructify. The parties did not appear for settling the dispute and for obtaining divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter the respondent No.1 husband is stated to have remarried and has children. The petitioner wife is left with her two children, one son and one daughter. The petitioner wife would have to be maintained since the domestic relationship continued upon the divorce not being obtained by mutual consent. The wife rightly filed an application under the D.V. Act. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance to the wife and children. The learned Sessions Court has overturned that order on the ground that in view of

¶14

2 REVN.79/2012

¶15

the divorce proceedings the application under the D.V. Act does not lie. The fact remains that the divorce has not been effected. The settlement has not even effectuated. The marital relationship continued. The subsequent marriage of the husband itself constitutes cruelty upon the wife. That would, therefore, be mental domestic violence. She would be entitled to apply for maintenance. Hence the reasoning of the Sessions Court seems to be erroneous and is set aside.

¶16

The order of the learned Magistrate is confirmed.

¶17

This Court tried to settle the dispute. Pending the dispute the husband was directed to pay Rs.14000/- to the wife and children as maintenance. That amount was paid for 2 months, but has not been paid for last 5 months. The husband shall continue to pay maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Miraj in his order dated 24^th August, 2011 until the matrimonial dispute between the parties is fully settled.

¶18

Though the husband has been served and had appeared earlier he has failed to appear today. Hence, the order is passed upon seeing the papers and upon hearing Counsel on behalf of the applicant.

¶19

The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors. v. Prakash Nagardas Dubal Shaha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors. v. Prakash Nagardas Dubal Shaha and Ors.

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

Rajiv Hiranandani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Shankar Landge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Lahu Shripati Kadam and Anr.

Anil Ashok Java and Ors. Vs Veena Anil Java and Anr.

Balaji Nivrutti Biradar Vs Rajashri Balaji Biradar @ Rajabai Pandurang Hogale and Anr.

Kadar Yusuf Sorathiya and Ors. Vs Kausar Sorathiya and Anr.