Allowed

Juneshkumar S/O Kashiram Talmale v. Sou. Mrunal W/O Juneshkumar Talmale

Bombay HC7 May 2014CAF/1069/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a civil application seeking a stay on a Family Court order directing payment of permanent alimony. The Court found the sum unreasonable and perversely high given the husband's low monthly income and reduced it with interim maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the permanent alimony order; interim maintenance of Rs.1,500 per month allowed; leave granted to deposit arrears.

Juneshkumar S/O Kashiram Talmale Vs Sou. Mrunal W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

fa.417.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

First Appeal No.417 of 2014

¶5

(Juneshkumar Kashiram Talmale vs. Sau. Mrunal Juneshkumar Talmale)

¶6

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶7

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶8

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶9

Ms. Manju Ghatode, Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. (Dr.) A.H. Jamal, Counsel for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : MAY 7, 2014.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

ADMIT.

¶13

Call for record and proceedings.

¶14

Learned Counsel Mr. Jamal waives notice on behalf

¶15

of the sole respondent.

¶16

Civil Application [CAF] No.1069/2014 :-

¶17

By this application, the applicant seeks stay of Clause [3] of the operative part of the judgment of the Family Court directing the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony in four equal installments of Rs.1,08,000/- with effect from 1^st of January, 2014.

¶18

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment dated 25/11/2013, we prima facie find that the order directing the husband to pay the permanent

¶19

2 / 2

¶20

fa.417.14

¶21

alimony of Rs.4,32,000/- is not only unreasonable but is perverse. The appellant-husband is nearly 28 years of age and the Family Court has observed that the monthly income of the husband is Rs.6782/-. In this set of facts, the Family Court could not have directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- to the wife towards permanent alimony in four equal installments. It prima facie appears that it would be impossible for a man with a monthly income of only Rs.6,782/- to shell out a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- towards maintenance to his wife at the age of 28.

¶22

The prayer made in the application is, therefore, granted subject to payment of Rs.1,500/- per month towards interim maintenance with effect from December, 2013. The appellant should continue to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the respondent during the pendency of the first appeal. The arrears of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- with effect from 1^st of December, 2013 should be deposited in this Court within a period of four weeks. It is, however, made clear that the amount of Rs.1,000/- paid by the husband to the wife every month , if any, towards the interim maintenance, should be adjusted towards the amount of Rs.1,500/- payable by the husband.

¶23

The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

*sdw

Juneshkumar S/O Kashiram Talmale v. Sou. Mrunal W/O Juneshkumar Talmale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juneshkumar S/O Kashiram Talmale v. Sou. Mrunal W/O Juneshkumar Talmale

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

Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. Mumbai Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner

Rashtriya Jalpraday Kamgar Sangh Vs City of Nagpur Mpl.Corporation and Another

Haribhau S/O Krushnarao Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah.and Others

Mir Ashfaque Ali S/O Mir Haider Ali Jafri Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Dept. of Education Mumabi and 4 Others

Bhimrao Ramaji Gedam Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation through Commissioner, and Others

Meenabai W/O Wamanrao Hingankar Vs Wamanrao S/O Ganpatrao Hingankar