Dismissed

Anil Sampat Chavan v. Indubai Anil Chavan

Bombay HC13 Nov 2013WP/647/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Bombay High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer to quash the revisional order directing maintenance payment. The Court held that if the relationship, means, and inability to maintain are undisputed, the High Court should not interfere via constitutional jurisdiction where only the just cause for separation is contested, as this requires civil adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected; the revisional order directing maintenance payment stands.

Anil Sampat Chavan Vs Indubai Anil Chavan — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp647.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 647 OF 2013

¶5

ANIL SAMPAT CHAVAN VERSUS

¶6

INDUBAI ANIL CHAVAN

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. M.R. Sonwane APP for Respondent : Mr.P.N.Muley

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: November 13, 2013

¶9

ORAL ORDER :-

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The

¶12

respondent had filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which

¶13

application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The respondent challenged the order passed by the Magistrate by filing

¶14

an application for revision which was allowed by the Court of Sessions and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to the respondent herein. The petitioner is aggrieved

¶15

by the said order passed by the revisional Court and has invoked

¶16

the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying that said

wp647.13.odt

order be set aside.

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.

¶21

The Magistrate as well as the Court of Sessions held that the respondent – wife was unable to maintain herself and that, the petitioner had sufficient means.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while reversing the order passed by the Magistrate. He submitted that the Revisional Court was not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence adduced before the Magistrate and that therefore, the order passed by the revisional Court is not in accordance with law.

¶23

I have gone through the relevant parts of the judgment delivered by the learned Magistrate as well as the Court of Sessions.

¶24

The Magistrate held the respondent (applicant before him) to be dis-entitled for maintenance mainly on the basis of an admission given by her in the cross examination to the effect that

¶25

she had filed the maintenance proceedings to harass the petitioner. According to the Court of Sessions, this admission by

¶26

wp647.13.odt

¶27

¶28

itself was not sufficient to hold the respondent to be dis-entitled

¶29

for maintenance.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent herself had left the matrimonial house and that, therefore, she was not entitled to receive maintenance. The proposition implicit in this contention cannot be accepted. The question is whether the respondent had a just cause for staying separately. Revisional Court has come to the conclusion that she had a just cause.

¶31

In my opinion, the matter has to be seen from an altogether different angle. When the relationship between the parties is not in dispute and availability of means with the petitioner as also inability of the respondent to maintain herself is not under challenge, it would not be proper to interfere in the matter by exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The question as to whether the respondent had a just cause for

¶32

living separately or not has been answered in favour of the respondent by the revisional court and proper adjudication in that

¶33

regard can be done only by a civil court in matrimonial

¶34

wp647.13.odt

¶35

¶36

proceeding. Keeping in mind the object of the provisions of Section 125 of the Code, which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, it would not be proper to exercise the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to quash an order of maintenance when, as aforesaid the relationship between the parties and other factors

¶37

necessary for grant of maintenance are not in dispute; and only the question as to whether or not the respondent had a just cause

¶38

for residing separately, is disputed.

¶39

In my opinion, this is not a fit case where the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, which is of extra ordinary

¶40

nature and discretionary, should be exercised.

¶41

The petition is rejected.

¶42

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶43

aaa/-

Anil Sampat Chavan v. Indubai Anil Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sampat Chavan v. Indubai Anil Chavan

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

Sonya @ Bhausaheb Dadaji Desale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Ramhari Thube and Ors. Vs the Collector , Ahmednagar and Ors.

Santosh Eknath Bharti and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajesh Chandmal Varma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Bhujangrao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Diliprao Muneshwar Vs the State of Maharashtra