Dismissed

Babasaheb Shrirang Hapase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Oct 2013WP/264/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects the petitioner's writ petition challenging a lower court's maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The Court held that the maintenance amount is meager and the petitioner is able-bodied, and thus the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction is not warranted to interfere. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the maintenance order was rejected and dismissed.

Babasaheb Shrirang Hapase Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.264.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 264 OF 2013

¶5

Babasaheb Shrirang Hapase

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

..RESPONDENT

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Autade K.B. APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. P.N. Muley

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 11, 2013

¶12

ORAL ORDER :-

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner is the father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Newasa directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate had directed maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to his wife also but when the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions against the order passed by the Magistrate, the Sessions Court while exercising powers of revision, cancelled the order of maintenance that was ordered to be paid to the wife of the petitioner. So far as the children i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are concerned, the order of maintenance was maintained.

¶15

It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has

¶16

Cri.W.P.264.13.odt

¶17

¶18

approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶19

The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner himself is without any income, and that, whatever land he had, he had given the same to the mother of the respondents, in lieu of full and final settlement of claim of maintenance. It is, however not clear as to what were the terms of so called settlement and whether it would bar the present respondents from claiming any amount of maintenance from their father.

¶20

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The amount of maintenance ordered is meager i.e. the total amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to both the respondents together. The petitioner is an able bodied person. Therefore, even without any specific proof of his actual income, his income can certainly be estimated to be at least Rs. 3,000/- per month. The orders passed under the provisions of Section 125 do not – and do not even purport to – decide the civil rights of the parties finally.

¶21

Under these circumstances, the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked, to interfere in the matter.

¶22

The Petition is rejected.

¶23

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶24

¶25

sga/-

Babasaheb Shrirang Hapase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Shrirang Hapase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vitthal Dhondiba Suryawanshi Vs the Dist. Supdt. of Police, Beed and Ors.

Bharadwaj Yadavrao Pagare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madan Tulsiram Hembade Vs Ashok Sonaji Hembade

Mubashir Ahemad Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Labib-Ul-Hasan Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mohamad Ekball Mohammad Illyas Ansari @ Ikbal Doller Vs Noor Mohammad Jan Mohammad Dead through His Legal Heirs Jaibunisa Noor Mohammad Ansari and Ors.