Dismissed

Kaduba W/O Pando Thorat v. Shantabai W/O Kaduba Thorat and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2015REVN/324/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Criminal Revision Application challenged a Family Court order fixing maintenance at Rs.500 per month. The applicant argued the amount was unreasonable given his agricultural income and overly burdensome retroactively. The Single Judge found the amount not exorbitant, noted the Court below considered evidence properly, and dismissed the revision, holding no jurisdictional error ex

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Application fails and stands dismissed; the order is Rule discharged.

Kaduba W/O Pando Thorat Vs Shantabai W/O Kaduba… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Cri.Revn.Appln.No.324/2003

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.324 OF 2003

¶5

Kaduba s/o Pandu Thorat, Age 47 years, Occu. Agriculture, Residing at Warud, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shantabai w/o Kaduba Thorat, Age 36 years, Occu. Household, Residing at Kayegaon, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad

¶9

Kaveri d/o Kaduba Thorat-Minor, under Guardianship of Respondent No.1

¶10

The State of Maharashtra (formal respondent)

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Mr Kshitij Surve, Advocate h/f Mr Hemant Surve, Advocate for applicant

¶13

Mr D.K. Dagadkhair, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 Mrs M.A. Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent No.3

¶14

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶15

DATE : 1^st October 2015

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Heard Mr Surve, learned Counsel for the applicant. He would suggest that the quantum of maintenance ordered i.e. Rs.500/- per month, particularly looking to the source of income of the applicant is completely unreasonable. According to him, since the amount of maintenance is ordered to be paid from the date of filing of the petition before the Family Court, Aurangabad, same is burdensome to applicant.

¶18

Cri.Revn.Appln.No.324/2003

¶19

¶20

He would urge that the litigation, particularly in the matter of claim of maintenance has already attained finality and in the above referred background, the order of awarding Rs.500/- per month is to be modified as Rs.200/- per month.

¶21

Having perused the order passed by learned Court below, it is noticed that the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad has taken into account the evidence available on record, particularly in the matter of source of income of the present applicant.

¶22

The quantum of Rs.500/- per month awarded by the Court below, in my opinion, cannot be termed as exorbitant in the background of evidence placed on record.

¶23

As such, no jurisdictional error or failure to exercise the jurisdiction is noticed. The Criminal Revision Application fails, stands dismissed. Rule discharged.

¶24

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶25

vvr

Kaduba W/O Pando Thorat v. Shantabai W/O Kaduba Thorat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaduba W/O Pando Thorat v. Shantabai W/O Kaduba Thorat and Ors.

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

Cheemangala Ramachar Ramesh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shantiram @ Shantaram S/O Sakladi Nagare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish S/O Ankush Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anita Dhanaji Wadikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nagnath Baburao Solapure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamlesh Mohan Bhadane Vs the State of Maharashtra