Mr. Chandrashekhar Narvankar v. Mrs. Anjali Chandrashekhar Narvankar
Bombay HCWP/2765/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
7-wp-2765-2015.doc
Vishal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2765 OF 2015
Chandrashekhar Narvankar ... Petitioner vs. Anjali Chandrashekhar Narvankar ... Respondent
Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat i/b. Raj Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Gangal, for the Respondent.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JULY 30, 2015
P.C.:
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the parties finally at the stage of admission, by consent.
that the Family Court did not take into account that since 1997 to
1 / 3
7-wp-2765-2015.doc
2014 the Respondent-wife did not apply for the maintenance. She was able to maintain herself during that period. He further submitted that the Respondent-wife is earning money. She has regular source of income. That fact is also overlooked by the learned Judge of the Family Court. He pointed out that the passbook entries in her account disclosing that the substantial amount was deposited in her account from time to time. He further submitted that by an order dated 26th May, 2014, the learned Judge has granted maintenance of Rs. 17,000/- p.m. and however no reasons are given as to why maintenance amount increased from Rs. 17,000/- to Rs. 22,000/p.m. Thus this order is illegal and it is to be set aside.
2 / 3
7-wp-2765-2015.doc
Family Court. The Family Court has considered all the parameters which are taken into consideration for granting maintenance. The salary slip of the Petitioner-husband was taken on record and his net salary is Rs. 47,222/-. The Respondent-wife is shouldering the responsibility of the daughter and the trial Court has mentioned that on perusal of the documents which are produced by the wife, it is found that she does not have regular source of income. The point raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner-husband that from 1997 to 2014 she did not apply for the maintenance and therefore it
is to be inferred that she has regular source of income, can not be a circumstance to deny the maintenance to her.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
3 / 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife's alleged past self-sufficiency from 1997 to 2014 negates her present need for maintenance.
Whether the Family Court's order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 17,000/p.m. to Rs. 22,000/p.m. is legal and well-reasoned.
Whether the wife's responsibility towards her daughter was duly considered in granting maintenance.
Chandrashekhar Narvankar
Anjali Chandrashekhar Narvankar
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court