This single judge court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a stay application in maintenance proceedings. The court noted failure to deposit outstanding maintenance arrears and held that the pendency of a regular appeal does not justify stay.
The writ petition stands rejected.
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.
(1) W.P. No.3591 /2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3591 OF 2014
Balasaheb Uttam Katore and ors. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS Shobha Balasaheb Katore and anr. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr S.K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioners; Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : 12th January, 2015
ORAL ORDER
By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 4th March, 2014, passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangamner, below Exh.39, in Special Civil Suit No.49 of 2010, whereby request for stay of the proceedings initiated under section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, came to be rejected.
(2) W.P. No.3591 /2014
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)
amj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether special leave to challenge the rejection of a stay of maintenance proceedings is warranted when arrears have not been fully deposited.
Whether the pendency of a regular civil appeal provides valid grounds for seeking a stay under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner has satisfied the requirement of showing bona fides by depositing the entire maintenance arrears.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balasaheb Uttam Katore and ors.
Shobha Balasaheb Katore and anr.
N.W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
