The High Court rejected the criminal revision application challenging the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court. The court observed that the assessment was reasonable, rejected the argument that the mother was misled, and found no ground for interference.
The revision petition/application was 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.
FCA.91/2015-CP.326/2015(27 & 44)
CR.RA.192/2015-FCA.54/2015-
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL / CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2015 IN
M.J. PETITION NO.92 OF 2014
Omar Haroon Shaikh ...Applicant/Orig.Respdt. Vs. Almas Mehmood Whewaria & Ors. ...Respondents/Orig.Ptnrs.
Mr. Ayaz Khan, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Shoaib I. Memon, Advocate for the Respondent No.1
ALONG WITH
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.91 OF 2015
IN
FAMILY COURT MAINTENANCE PETITION NO. E-92 OF 2014
Almas Mehmood Whewaria & Anr. ...Appellants/Orig.Ptnrs. Vs. Omar Haroon Shaikh ...Respondent/Orig.Rspdt.
ALONG WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2015
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.54 OF 2015
IN
FAMILY COURT CUSTOD PETITION NO. D-66 OF 2012
Omar Haroon Shaikh ...Petitioner/Orig.Respdt. Vs. Almas Mehmood Whewaria & Ors. ...Respondents/Orig.Applt
Ms.T.F. Irani i/b. Ayaz Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner in CP No.326 of 2015 & Respondent in FCA No.54 and FCA No.91/2015 Mr. Shoaib Memon, Advocate for the Respondent in
1/3
FCA.91/2015-CP.326/2015(27 & 44)
CR.RA.192/2015-FCA.54/2015-
CP. No. 326 of 2015 & Appellant in FCA No.54 of 2015 and FCA No.91 of 2015
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2016.
P.C. :
1] Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the record. Perused the order passed by this Court on 2nd September, 2015 and 5th October, 2015. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for grant of interim relief. It is submitted that the trial Court was misled by the respondent by producing lengthy evidence. The trial Court ascertained maintenance amount on a higher side. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the petitioner is willing to pay maintenance to the child. The Counsel objected to grant of maintenance to the respondent, mother of the child. One of the contentions is that the mother of the child is earning and resides with her mother in a three bedroom flat. We have considered the submissions. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent had prayed for grant of interim relief, but this Court had rejected the prayer by an order dated 5th October,
2/3
FCA.91/2015-CP.326/2015(27 & 44)
CR.RA.192/2015-FCA.54/2015-
in the maintenance amount granted by Court. The revision petition is rejected.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
whether the trial court's assessment of maintenance amount warrants interference in the criminal revision application.
whether the petitioner is entitled to be relieved of the granted maintenance obligation to the mother of the child.
Omar Haroon Shaikh
Almas Mehmood Whewaria
NARESH H. PATIL
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
