Dismissed

Mr. Atul Onkar Sahay Jauhari v. Mrs. Neena Atul Jauhari

Bombay HC18 Apr 2013WP/2763/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to vary interim maintenance for a child, the court upheld the lower court's order finding no change in circumstances. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner was in substantial arrears of maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.11.2012 rejecting variation of interim maintenance is upheld; Writ Petition dismissed; Petitioner directed to pay arrears.

Mr. Atul Onkar Sahay Jauhari Vs Mrs. Neena Atul Jauhari — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/2 -

¶2

915.wp.2763.13.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2763 OF 2013

¶5

Mr.Atul Onkar Sahay Jauhari ..Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Mrs.Neena Atul Jauhari

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

Mr.S.M.Oak with Mr.Sagar Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms.Vandana, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 18^TH APRIL 2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 19.11.2012 by which order the application filed by the Petitioner for varying the interim maintenance came to be rejected. The interim maintenance has been fixed by the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Trial Court i.e. the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The interim maintenance is Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the children i.e. Sarth and Kranti and the educational expenses being Rs.5,000/- per month to Sarth and Rs.4,000/- per month to Kranti.

¶14

2 The application for varying the interim maintenance is moved only

¶15

in so far as Sarth is concerned on the the ground that he has attained the age of majority. The interim maintenance was fixed for Sarth on the basis

¶16

S.K.Talekar

¶17

2/2 - 915.wp.2763.13.doc

¶18

that he is prosecuting his studies in engineering. The said Sarth is still continuing his studies in engineering. In my view therefore the rejection of the application Exhibit 21 on the ground that the same does not disclose any change of circumstances, cannot be taken exception to.

¶19

3 A grievance is made across the bar by the learned counsel Ms.Vandana, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Wife that the Petitioner is in substantial arrears in so far as the interim maintenance is concerned. If that be so, the Petitioner is directed to comply with the payment of interim maintenance as directed vide order dated 20.02.2009. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out.

¶20

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Mr. Atul Onkar Sahay Jauhari v. Mrs. Neena Atul Jauhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Atul Onkar Sahay Jauhari v. Mrs. Neena Atul Jauhari

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

Bhagwan Gajanan Kokre and Anr. Vs Maruti Ramchandra Kokre and Ors.

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak and Vitarak Sangh, through Managing Committee Member and Treasurer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal Vs Hindustan Sugars Ltd, through Bhushan Sudhakar Salunke and Ors.

Sou. Suman Shivajirao Ghule Vs Shri. Dilip Changdeo Khare and Ors.

Vakas Mushtaque Patel Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through Superintendent Engineer (Nodal Officer) and Anr.

Shrimati Shahida Elai Shekh Vs Smt. Bebi Nuruddin Sanglikar, and Ors.