Dismissed

Sangram Dattatraya Ghorpade v. Meena Sangram Ghorpade Anda N

Bombay HC18 Nov 2014WP/2081/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded to the wife. The High Court exercised superintendence under Article 227 and dismissed the petition, finding no error or infirmity in the lower court orders.

What did the court decide?

No. The petition was rejected and the impugned orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Court were maintained.

Sangram Dattatraya Ghorpade Vs Meena Sangram Ghorpade… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Ingale 1/3 15.wp.2081.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2081 OF 2014

¶5

Mr.Sangram Dttatraya Ghorpade

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs.Meena Sangram Ghorpade and another .. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Rajaram Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.V.Gajare, APP for State.

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 18^th NOVEMBER, 2014.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 Heard Mr.Rajaram Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. With his assistance, I have gone through the petition and annextures thereto.

¶13

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1 herein. The respondent No.1 had filed proceedings against the petitioner and others, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'Domestic Violence Act'). The learned Magistrate, after holding an inquiry into the matter, directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/to the respondent No.1.

¶14

Ingale 2/3 15.wp.2081.14

¶15

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and his relatives filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions, as provided for in section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. The appeal came to be dismissed. The petitioner has now approached this Court, invoking his constitutional jurisdiction, under Article 227 thereof, praying that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, as also by the Sessions Court in appeal, be quashed and set aside.

¶16

I have carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Magistrate, as also by the Sessions Court in appeal.

¶17

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The only grievance that is expressed, is about the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 was having an employment somewhere, and had her own income, but this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate, or by the Sessions Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner gets a nominal salary of Rs.5,800/- per month, and that therefore, is unable to pay the maintenance at the rate awarded.

¶18

Perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, as also by the learned Sessions Judge indicates that the petitioner was unable to establish these facts, namely that the respondent No.1 was having income of her own, and that he was earning only an amount of Rs.5,800/- per month. The learned Magistrate has given valid reasons for not accepting such contention put forth by the petitioner (respondent No.1 before the learned Magistrate). The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence, came to

¶19

Ingale 3/3 15.wp.2081.14

¶20

the conclusion that the petitioner was bound to maintain the respondent No.1, and that the amount of maintenance ought to be Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶21

The same was the view taken by the Court of Sessions on the basis of the evidence that was adduced during the inquiry.

¶22

I see no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, or by the Court of Sessions. Certainly, this is not a fit case where either the learned Magistrate, or the Court of Sessions can be said to have acted beyond the authority vested in them by law. No case for interfering with the impugned orders by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. Petition is rejected.

¶23

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

Sangram Dattatraya Ghorpade v. Meena Sangram Ghorpade Anda N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Dattatraya Ghorpade v. Meena Sangram Ghorpade Anda N

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

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Pratham Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Prakash Babu Shitap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vanita Sudhir Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Bhiva Kawalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Priyesh Bheda I.R.S. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.