Dismissed

Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh v. Jyoti Rajendra Deshmukh

Bombay HC19 Mar 2019REVN/325/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against an ex-parte Family Court order for maintenance payment, the court directed the applicant to deposit maintenance on appeal terms. Petition remand is contingent on deposit; failure to deposit results in dismissal of the revision.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to deposit maintenance; petition remanded for fresh hearing upon payment; non-compliance leads to dismissal of revision.

Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh Vs Jyoti Rajendra Deshmukh — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

crvn325.17

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.325 OF 2017

¶6

Rajendra s/o Bhaurao Deshmukh,
Age-45 years, Occu:Govt. Service,
R/o-House No.1-9-15, Jaisinghpura,
Aurangabad.

¶7

...APPLICANT

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) Sow. Jyoti w/o Rajendra Deshmukh, Age-38 years, Occupation:Household, R/o-House No.1-9-15, Prakaram Colony, Jaisinghpura, Aurangabad,

¶10

2) Rupesh s/o Rajendra Deshmukh, Age-14 years, Occu:Student, R/o-As Above,

¶11

3) Ganesh s/o Rajendra Deshmukh, Age-12 years, Occu:Student, R/o-As above.

¶12

(Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Minors
Under Guardianship of their Mother
Respondent No.1)

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

 ...
 Mr. D.S. Bharuka Advocate for Applicant.
 Mr. Amol R. Gaikwad Advocate for Respondents.
 ...

¶15

crvn325.17

¶16

¶17

CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

¶18

 DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2019

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶21

heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶22

2.Heard Shri Bharuka, the learned counsel

¶23

for the Applicant and Shri Gaikwad, the learned
counsel for the Respondents.

¶24

3.By the present Revision, the Applicant is
challenging the order passed by learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition
No.E-125 of 2017 dated 29th September, 2017. By the
said order, the learned Principal Judge of the
Family Court directed the Applicant to pay
maintenance @ Rs.2000/- to each of the Respondent
from 19th June, 2017.

¶25

crvn325.17

¶26

¶27

4.According to Shri Bharuka, the learned

¶28

counsel for the Applicant, the impugned order is
an ex-parte order and due to health issue, the
Applicant could not remain present before the
Court below, consequently the impugned order needs
to be set aside.

¶29

5.After hearing the learned counsel for the
Applicant and Respondents, to meet the ends of
justice, I pass the following order:-

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

(I) The Applicant is directed to deposit the
amount of maintenance @ Rs.6000/- per month from
19th June, 2017 till today i.e. 19th March, 2019, in
the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, within
period of three weeks from today.

¶32

(II) Needless to mention that, the amount, if

¶33

crvn325.17

¶34

¶35

any, deposited earlier by the Applicant should be
adjusted.

¶36

(III) If the amount is deposited within a period
of three weeks from today, then only the Petition
E-125 of 2017 stands remanded to the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad.

¶37

(IV) The parties to appear before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad on 16th April,
2019, so that no fresh notices would be required

¶38

to be issued to the parties to this Revision
Application.

¶39

(V) After the appearance of the parties before
the Court below, the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Aurangabad to try and decide the Petition
E-125 of 2017, afresh, after giving opportunity of
hearing, which shall inclusive of filing of
written statement, application for amendment etc.,
within a period of six months from the date of

¶40

crvn325.17

¶41

¶42

appearance of the parties.

¶43

(VI) If the amount is not deposited within the
period of three weeks i.e. on or before 9th April,
2019, then the present Revision Application shall
be treated as dismissed.

¶44

(VII) If the amount is deposited, the Respondents
will be entitled to withdraw the said amount
without offering any security for the same, since
it is the amount towards maintenance.

¶45

(VIII) Rule is made absolute on above terms. The
Revision Applicationstands disposedof,

¶46

accordingly.

¶47

 [V.M. DESHPANDE, J.]

¶48

asb/MAR19

Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh v. Jyoti Rajendra Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh v. Jyoti Rajendra Deshmukh

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

Shivaji Kadu Chinchole Vs Champalal Bhagwan Borse and Ors.

M/S. Jark Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Jamnagar through Its Manager Sagar Singhal S/O. Vedprakash Singhal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harun Khan Jarwar Khan Pathan Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.