In a matrimonial dispute where one spouse sought to set aside maintenance liability citing financial hardship, the High Court refused to interfere with the impugned Family Court order, dismissing the writ petition pending the final hearing on merits.
Writ petition No. 12062 of 2017 dismissed; Writ petition No. 14623 of 2017 dismissed.
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.
W.P. 12062 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12062 of 2017
Umesh S/o Babasaheb Gawali, age 39 years occupation legal practitioner R/o village Pimpalgaon Kamleshwari Taluka Washi District Osmanabad ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Rama D/o Vitthalrao Kale (Rama W/o Sanjay Jadhav) age 44 years occupation legal practitioner R/o 10/1, C-3, Soubhagya Housing Society, No.8, Azad Chowk, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14623 of 2017
Rama W/o Umesh Gawali, age 41 years occupation nil R/o A-7, Kalashanti Apartment, Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Umesh S/o Babasaheb Gawali, age 39 years occupation legal practitioner R/o village Pimpalgaon Kamleshwari Taluka Washi District Osmanabad ...Respondent
Mr Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner in writ petition 12062 of 2017 and respondent in W.P. No. 14623 of 2017 Mr V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate for respondent in W.P. No. 12062 of 2017 and petitioner in W.P. No. 14623 of 2017
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 6th September, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2 W.P. 12062 of 2017
orders dated 23rd February, 2017 and 25th July, 2017 passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad, on Exhibit – 43 where-under the petitioner, according to learned counsel, has been fastened on to liability to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month towards maintenance of daughter Maitri. Learned counsel purports to refer to various aspects involved in the matter with regard to validity of marriage and contends that eventually the petitioner had to move back to his native and in the circumstances, his income has got drastically affected and practically he has no earning. In the circumstances, it is difficult for him to bear with the liability fastened on him under impugned order. Albeit, he also refers to that paternity of daughter is not an issue. He also purports to contend that respondent-wife is well possessed and rich woman. She is bent upon vexing and harassing petitioner in order to make him yield to her and be in her servitude.
3 W.P. 12062 of 2017
and for dispute between them, it would not be expedient that the child's career be hampered.
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE.
Madkar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order given the petitioner's alleged loss of income.
Umesh S/o Babasaheb Gawali
Rama D/o Vitthalrao Kale
Rama W/o Umesh Gawali
Umesh S/o Babasaheb Gawali
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
