The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an interim maintenance order. The trial court directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month. Despite the petitioner's objections regarding lack of property and proved attempts at cohabitation, the appellate judge found no error in the trial court's assessment of the interim award.
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.
905-wp-7209-2018.odt
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7209 OF 2018
Montu Vasantkumar Jain ] Petitioner Vs. Purvi Montu Jain ] Respondent
Mr. Ish Jain i/b Kiran Jain & Co., for Petitioner.
CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J.
DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2018.
P.C.
Heard Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length.
1 of 5
905-wp-7209-2018.odt
Family Court within three weeks from the date of the order, failing which, the Petition was to stand dismissed automatically without further reference of the Court. In case, the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- in the Family Court within the stipulated period, notice was to be issued to the respondent returnable on 24th August, 2018. Subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted. Mr. Jain states that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 1,25,000/- in the Family Court, Mumbai within the stipulated period. The matter was heard in the morning session and was adjourned in the afternoon session so as to enable the learned Counsel for the petitioner to take instructions from the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit arrears of maintenance. Upon taking instructions from the petitioner, he states that the petitioner is not ready and willing to deposit arrears as he has already deposited Rs. 1,25,000/- as per the order dated 18th July, 2018.
2 of 5
905-wp-7209-2018.odt
in the name of his father. In short, he submitted that the properties at Shree Nakoda Bhavan, Ladpura, Itwari, Nagpur – 440 002 and shop at Gudganj, Itwari, Nagpur-2 were sold out by his father. The learned trial Judge, however, proceeded on the footing that the said properties are still available in the family of the Petitioner.
3 of 5
905-wp-7209-2018.odt
did not disclose as to when flat at Shree Nakoda Bhavan, Ladpur, Itwari, Nagpur was sold by his father and to whom. The same thing is about Shop at Gudganj, Itwari, Nagpur which was sold by his father. No particulars are furnished as regards when the sale was effected and to whom the flat and shop were sold. In any case, a perusal of paragraph 22 (c) shows that Flat No.13 at Venu Apartment, 1st Floor, 40, B.J. Beokar Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai stands in the joint name of parents of the petitioner. Office being “Mahavir Dresses” at Cosmos Building, Gokhale Road, Ashish Ind. Estate, Dadar (West), Mumbai stands in the name of the petitioner's father. Two Houses at Village Bijapur, Dist Pali, Rajasthan stand in the name of the petitioner's father.
4 of 5
905-wp-7209-2018.odt
written statement. Be that as it may, it is a matter of evidence between the parties. For the time being, the Court is concerned with the amount of interim maintenance.
[R.G. KETKAR, J.]
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the trial court’s order granting interim maintenance.
Whether the trial judge erred in awarding interim maintenance without considering the petitioner’s denial of the respondent’s allegations regarding property and separation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Montu Vasantkumar Jain
Purvi Montu Jain
R.G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
