Dismissed

Mr. Aditya Mitthuram Prajapati v. Mrs. Poonam Aditya Prajapati

Bombay HC20 Dec 2017WP/12578/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month. The court found the amount reasonable and refused to interfere, directing the petitioner to approach the Family Court for modification based on changed circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without interfering with the impugned order; petitioner permitted to approach Family Court for modification.

Mr. Aditya Mitthuram Prajapati Vs Mrs. Poonam Aditya… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2017)

8-12578.17

1/3

RNG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12578 OF 2017 in INTERIM MAINTENANCE APPLN NO.23 OF 2016 in

¶5

FAMILY COURT PETITION NO.A-1927 of 2015 Aditya Mitthuram Prajapati .... Petitioner vs

¶6

Mrs.Poonam Aditya Prajapati … Respondent

¶7

Ms.Deepali D.Parab for Petitioner Mr.Chetan Akerkar for Respondent.

¶8

Coram : G.S.KULKARNI, J Date : 20 DECEMBER 2017

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The challenge in the petition is to an order dated 28.7.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai. By the impugned order the application as filed by the respondent-wife for maintenance has been allowed with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.6000/- per month to the respondent-wife

¶12

from the date of application i.e.18.2.2016 till the disposal of the petition.

¶13

Having perused the impugned order as also the

¶14

2/3 8-12578.17

¶15

RNG

¶16

documents as placed on record, it does not appear that the amount as directed to be paid by the petitioner is unreasonable. The only contention as urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-wife is an MBA and therefore, she has the potential of receiving more salary. However, there is nothing placed on record to show that the respondent-wife is earning salary of more than Rs.15,000/- as recorded in the impugned order. The impugned order therefore, would not require any interference as it is passed taking into consideration the facts as placed on record on behalf of the parties. If the petitioner is of the opinion that due to changed circumstances, the impugned order requires any modification, then it would be appropriate that the petitioner is permitted to approach the Family court seeking modification of the impugned order. All contentions in that regard are kept open.

¶17

With the above observations, petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai. No costs.

¶18

RNG 3/3 8-12578.17

Mr. Aditya Mitthuram Prajapati v. Mrs. Poonam Aditya Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Aditya Mitthuram Prajapati v. Mrs. Poonam Aditya Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Purvi Mukesh Gada Vs Mr. Mukesh Popatlal Gada

Balkrishna Karbhari Bahikar(Kumbhar) Vs Smt. Sugandhabai Walmik Nikam

Smt. Vibhuti Mayank Sinvhal Vs Shri Mayank Manish Sinvhal

Neel Sarovar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Sneh Sarovar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Union of India through Chief Engineer Vs M/S. Mohata Construction Co.

Bhalchandra Dattaram Korgaonkar Vs Helik Advisory Limited