In these criminal revision applications, the applicant challenged the maintenance order confirming interim alimony of Rs.25,000 per month. The High Court found the lower court's order fair and not unreasonable, dismissing the revision applications.
Revision applications dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.
hcs
1 906.revn222.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.740 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.243 OF 2017
Prashant Pandit Salve .. Applicant. Vs. Suvarna Prashant Salve & Ors. .. Respondents.
Mr.Prakash Mahadik for the Applicant. Mr.Raviraj S. Gamare for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.S. Chat APP for the State.
CORAM : A. K. MENON, J.
DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2017
P.C. :
2 906.revn222.17
payable for accommodation. Thus the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month is directed to be paid by the Magistrate Court has been confirmed. The order has been directed to be operative from the date of the application before the Magistrate. In addition to the above, by an order of the Family Court dated 7th September, 2009 a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month was payable. Thus in all Rs.25,000/- is directed to be paid by the applicant. The respondent-wife had made the application for maintenance on the basis that the applicant was drawing salary of more than Rs.1,50,000/- since he was employed in a nationalised a bank in a senior position. Thus, she had sought interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- for the minor child. In addition, she sought a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards monthly rent in respect of accommodation.
3 906.revn222.17
of November 2016 which indicates that his gross salary as on that day was Rs.83,590.41 providing for provident fund, loan installment and interest amounting to Rs.7,785/- and tax payable if still leaves him a net salary of Rs.58,458.41. Thus, although the trial Court found in favour of the respondent only on the basis of a statement across the bar and on assumption of salary slip now produced is not in dispute. Accordingly, one can proceed on the basis that net salary as shown in salary slips of November 2016, December 2016 and January 2017 is currently being drawn by him and as reproduced in Exhibit-C Colly. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife states that the applicant is in arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs.6,80,000/-. On the last occasion when this matter was heard, time was granted to the parties since they were both confident of arriving at a workable solution as to payment of arrears and further payment of house rent. However, today Mr.Mahadik states on instructions that the settlement has not fructified.
The order if fair and not unreasonable. Hence, I pass the following order :
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance order passed by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court requires reconsideration in light of revised income evidence.
Prashant Pandit Salve
Suvarna Prashant Salve
A. K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
