Allowed

Pradnya Sidharth Sughande and Others v. Sidharth Shivram Sughande

Bombay HC8 Dec 2014WP/160/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench allowed a criminal writ petition challenging a Sessions Judge's revision order in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance case. The Court enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 2000 for the daughter despite her being above 18 and clarified that quantum could be enhanced considering the father's income.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced to Rs. 2000 per month, effective 1.12.2014, recoverable from 5.10.2009.

Pradnya Sidharth Sughande and Others Vs Sidharth… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri.W.P. No. 160/14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 160 OF 2014

¶5

Pradnya d/o. Sidharth Sughande, Age 20 years, Occu. Education, 2) Lata w/o. Sidharth Sughande, Age 48 years, Occu. Husehold, 3) Praphull s/o. Sidharth Sughande, Age 18 years, Occu. Education. All R/o. Basmath, A/p. Basmat Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioners. Versus 1) Sidharth s/o. Shivram Sughande, Age 54 years, Occu. Service as Assistant Superintendent at Jintur Court, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. 2) The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents.

¶6

Mr. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Hemant Surve, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.K. Tambe, APP for State.

¶7

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 8th December, 2014.

¶8

JUDGMENT :

¶9

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

¶10

Cri.W.P. No. 160/14

¶11

¶12

The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision No. 90/2012 which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Parbhani. In a proceeding filed by present petitioners under section 125 of Cr.P.C., maintenance was refused to original applicant No. 1 - Pradnya Sughande by learned J.M.F.C. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed her revision and has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/per month. However, maintenance is made payable from the date of order i.e. 5.7.2013 when the maintenance proceeding was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. on 15.12.2009. The petitioner No. 1 is also not satisfied with the quantum.

¶13

The respondent is father of Pradnya and it is contended that he is working as Assistant Superintendent and he also owns agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos. 60 and 281. Thus, he gets income from both the service and agriculture. The learned J.M.F.C. granted maintenance to the wife Smt. Lata at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- was given to minor son Prafulla. Prafulla was aged about 15 years at the relevant time and he was receiving education. Maintenance was refused to daughter Pradnya by holding that she had crossed age of 18 years and so, she was

¶14

Cri.W.P. No. 160/14

¶15

¶16

not entitled to get maintenance. Thus, there was some misconception. The daughter is entitled to get the maintenance till she gets married or she is able to maintain herself.

¶17

The matter was referred to mediator and it appears that the father of Pradnya submitted that at present, considering his position, he may be in a position to give more than the amount of Rs. 1000/-. At the relevant time, his monthly salary was more than Rs. 20,000/-. The son must have become major. In view of these circumstances and submissions made, this Court holds that Pradnya is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. When the maintenance order is made under section 125 of Cr.P.C., in ordinary circumstances, the maintenance needs to be granted from the date of application and not from the date of order. The power is given to the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance with that intention. It is not the case of original respondent that the delay was caused due to the conduct of the original applicants. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the judgment and order of revision needs to be modified.

¶18

In the result, the petition is allowed. Maintenance in favour of original applicant No. 1 - Pradnya Sidharth Sughande is

¶19

Cri.W.P. No. 160/14

¶20

¶21

enhanced from Rs. 1000/- per month to Rs. 2000/- per month and this enhancement will take effect from 1.12.2014 as per the submissions made by both the sides. However, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month granted in favour of Pradnya will be recoverable from 5.10.2009.

¶22

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶23

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶24

ssc/

Pradnya Sidharth Sughande and Others v. Sidharth Shivram Sughande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradnya Sidharth Sughande and Others v. Sidharth Shivram Sughande

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

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde Vs Sau.Nirmla Suryabhan Chaudhari and Another

Naushad Begum Shaikh Hamid Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Sukhdev Uike

Mohammad Vazir Shaikh and Others Vs Roshan Mohammad Shaikh and Others

Umesh Dilip Goyar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vinayak Dangal Patil and Others Vs Anita Ratilal Patil and Another