Dismissed

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve v. Sudarshan Indrajeet Surve and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2013REVN/93/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision application challenges a maintenance order of Rs. 1000 p.m. granted to an illegitimate child. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court rightly decided the merits based on the applicant's written reply which accepted paternity and disclosed his earnings, rendering the order not erroneous. The special leave to appeal was also rejected.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Application No. 93 of 2013 was dismissed.

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve Vs Sudarshan Indrajeet… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

REVN.93/2013(3)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2013

¶6

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve Vs. Sudarshan Indrajeet Surve through Guardian (Mother) Savita Ratnu Bagwe & Anr.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the Applicant Mr. Pramod Pawar for Respondent No.1 Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the Respondent State

¶10

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 22^ND MARCH, 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The applicant father of the child has impugned the order of maintenance of his child granting maintenance of a paltry sum of Rs.1000/- p.m. The father has claimed that the child is illegitimate and denied the paternity in his reply to the application filed in the trial Court. The father has claimed that a false case of rape was filed against him to extort money in which he was exonerated and acquitted. He has not produced a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 9^th November 2006 referred to by him.

¶13

The applicant father has stated that he is a driver on a private vehicle earning Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/-p.m. Accepting that statement in the reply filed by the applicant himself, the learned Judge has considered the legitimacy of the child and his

REVN.93/2013(3)

means to pay.

The applicant claims that the order is exorbitant. The applicant was served. He has filed reply. It is for him to remain present. He claims that his Advocate failed to remain present. That is not the reason, the learned Judge cannot proceed with the application. The learned Judge has decided the merits of the case upon considering the reply of the applicant himself. The order of maintenance is rather paltry. Once it is seen that paternity of the child is not justifiably denied, the question is of maintenance alone. That maintenance has been decided based upon the applicant's reply.

¶18

There is nothing erroneous about the order.

¶19

Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve v. Sudarshan Indrajeet Surve and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve v. Sudarshan Indrajeet Surve 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

P. v. Harindranath Vs Sujata Harindranath and Anr.

Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge and Anr. Vs Suchita Shailesh Fulsunge and Anr.

Mrudula Kishore and Ors. Vs Payal Malhotra and Ors.

Mr. Raj Katra Vs Mrs. Sunita Raj Katra

Mr. Rahul Harish Shah Vs Mrs. Nainy Rahul Shah

Tushar S. Joag Vs Master Kashyap T. Joag