Dismissed

Mrs. Deepali Milind Surve v. Mr. Milind Manohar Surve and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2014WP/7569/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Family Court's rejection of an application to examine the husband's employer. The High Court found the Family Court correct due to available income-tax returns and admissions in cross-examination, dismissing the petition. No interference was required. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; order of Family Court upheld.

Mrs. Deepali Milind Surve Vs Mr. Milind… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Prod14.WP7569_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7569 OF 2014

¶5

Mrs. Deepali Milind Surve … Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

Milind Manohar Surve & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. L.N. Karde i/b. Ms. Kirtimala H. Kamble, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila U. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 24^th September, 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶12

This Writ Petition is directed against the Order below Exhibit 121 dated 31^st July, 2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 3, Mumbai thereby rejecting the Application.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/wife has given an Application seeking permission to examine respondent/husband's employer at Koparkhairna, Navi Mumbai, District Thane, as the income of the respondent/husband has not come on record properly. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Judge of the

¶14

Family Court ought to have considered this Application, as the petitioner/wife has to prove the income of the husband and no proper

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

Prod14.WP7569_2014.doc

¶17

evidence has come on record in respect of income. He submitted that examination of husband's employer is necessary to fix the income of the respondent/husband. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court be set aside.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent/husband submitted that in the cross-examination of the respondent, he has given admission about the income and income is approximately Rs.1.30 lakhs per month, which has come on record. The learned counsel supported the order passed by the Family Court Judge.

¶19

Read the impugned order. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order, the learned Judge of the Family Court has given the reasons as to why the evidence of the employer of the respondent/husband is not required. He has observed that other documentary evidence like Income-tax Return and Form-16 is available before the Court. So also there is a reference of admission sought by the petitioner in the cross-examination of the respondent/husband on the point of income. In view of this, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Judge of Family Court. The order is legal. No interference is required. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶20

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶21

2 of 2

Mrs. Deepali Milind Surve v. Mr. Milind Manohar Surve and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Deepali Milind Surve v. Mr. Milind Manohar Surve and Anr.

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

Amar Tanaji Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kumar Dattatraya Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Digambar Shinde (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant Prabhakar Bhande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Bhujanga Bhandary Vs Sushma Bhandary

Ajay Mahadeo Shinge Vs the State of Maharashtra