The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court held that the trial judge properly considered the wife's income from rent and property assets, finding the pecuniary award not excessive.
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.
4.WP6817_2015.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6817 OF 2015
Satyawan Tanaji Medankar Vs.
Smt. Shobha Satyawan Medankar
... Petitioner
... Respondent
Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : JULY 23, 2015
P.C.:
This Writ Petition is directed against the order of maintenance filed under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act dated 28th January, 2015 passed
by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune directing to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife towards maintenance pendente lite and Rs.7,000/- p.m. by way of legal expenses.
1 / 2
4.WP6817_2015.doc
MIDC and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/-. The age of petitioner is 55 years and that of respondent is 52 years. Considering this, the order passed by the learned trial Judge is erroneous and is to be set aside.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
2 / 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance order passed by the trial court was illegal given the wife's financial resources and income from property and rent.
Whether the interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. was excessive considering the age and employment of the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satyawan Tanaji Medankar
Shobha Satyawan Medankar
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
