Dismissed

Prashant Ramesh Sawant v. Manisha Prashant Sawant and Another

Bombay HC17 Oct 2013WP/276/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a criminal writ petition filed by a husband seeking to quash maintenance orders passed under Section 125 CrPC in his favor of his wife and minor child. Holding that the orders were legal and proper and no error or illegality existed, the court found no case for invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction against them.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; impugned maintenance orders affirmed.

Prashant Ramesh Sawant Vs Manisha Prashant Sawant and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.276.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2013

¶5

Prashant Ramesh Sawant

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Manisha Prashant Sawant and another.

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Deshmukh

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 17, 2013

¶12

ORAL ORDER :-

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent no.1 herein. The respondent no.2 is a minor child of the petitioner and the respondent no.1. On an application made under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shirur directed the petitioner herein (respondent before the Magistrate) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent no.1 herein, and at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent no.2 herein.

¶15

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application for revision, but the learned Sessions Judge, Beed by observing that the impugned order was legal and proper, dismissed the revision application.

¶16

Cri.W.P.276.13.odt

¶17

¶18

It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶19

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Though it is claimed that the petitioner is unemployed, it is not disputed before me that he owns certain agricultural land. The petitioner is an able bodied person. The learned Sessions Judge while considering the revision application held that the income of the petitioner could be taken as somewhere between Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month.

¶20

The orders passed under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code, do not – and do not even purport to – decide the civil rights of the parties finally. The said provision is meant for providing a speedy relief to the neglected wives and children. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has not made an order under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, appealable.

¶21

Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have come to a conclusion that the respondents are entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner. There is no error or illegality – much less a patent error or patent illegality - in the impugned orders.

¶22

Considering this, there is no case for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, which is of an extra ordinary nature.

¶23

The Petition is rejected.

¶24

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶25

¶26

sga/-

Prashant Ramesh Sawant v. Manisha Prashant Sawant and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Ramesh Sawant v. Manisha Prashant Sawant and Another

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

Sushila Mahadev Chaudhari Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Savita Narsoji Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rasana Ramesh Dehadkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Viral Malaybhai Dalal Vs Jhaveri Flexo (India) Ltd.

Suresh @ Udhavlal Tillumal Lalwani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mubarak Jainodin Jangi and Anr. Vs Sow. Shahinbi Amir Jangi and Others