Dismissed

Keyuree Krunal Gala v. Krunal Bharat Gala and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2019WP/220/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner wife challenged interim maintenance order enhanced by Sessions Court. She alleged trial court ignored respondent's high income of Rs.1.08L, while respondent claimed need to maintain parents. Court upheld discretion.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim maintenance order of Rs.35,000 (25,000 to wife, 10,000 to son) set at Rs.25,000 to wife and Rs.10,000 to son remained in force.

Keyuree Krunal Gala Vs Krunal Bharat Gala and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

901.WP.220.17.doc

¶2

ShubhaS. Pathak Digitally signed byShubhaS. PathakDate: 2019.12.1715:37:04 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.220 OF 2017

¶5

Mrs. Keyuree Krunal Gala …..Petitioner Versus

¶6

Mr. Krunal Bharat Gala & Ors. …..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Shailesh Ishwarlal Kantharia, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Vivek Gore for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ. DATE : 13^th DECEMBER, 2019.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

The petitioner wife has fled this petition challenging the order of Sessions Court for enhancement of maintenance granted to her and her son in C.C.No.42/DV/2013. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is wife of respondent No.1. They have a son out of said wedlock. The petitioner had already fled a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application for interim maintenance which was objected by the respondent. After hearing the parties, Family Court has allowed the application of the petitioner granted her maintenance of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to her son.

¶13

2 The said order is under challenge. It is contended on behalf of the Ssp

¶14

1/3

¶15

901.WP.220.17.doc

¶16

petitioner that the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court has not considered income of the respondent in proper prospective. It is submitted that income certifcate of the respondent No.1 is produced on record wherein it is clearly mentioned that net monthly income of the respondent No.1 was Rs.1,08,079/- for the months of November 2014 to December 2014 but the Trial Court had not considered the said income. It has taken into account the basic salary of Rs.53,958/- and passed order of interim maintenance. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Court under Revision but the Sessions Court has not used its discretion to interfere with the order of Family Court on the ground that there is no illegality or error committed by the Trial Court , hence petitioner has fled present writ petition.

¶17

3 It is submitted that the income of respondent No.1 is so high that more amount can be awarded to the petitioner and her son.

¶18

4 The petition is opposed by respondent No.1. It is submitted that respondent No.1 is required to maintain his aged parents. Similarly, he has to incur some other expenses. The petitioner is also earning income. He invited my attention to the cross examination wherein she has admitted that she has invested some huge amount in some companies. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no need to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.

¶19

5 On going through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court as well as Sessions Court, it appears that both the Courts considered the documentary evidence on record. There are some facts whereby it can be said that the petitioner is earning some income. It cannot be said that she is

¶20

Ssp

¶21

2/3

¶22

901.WP.220.17.doc

¶23

living at the mercy of respondent No.1. No doubt, the respondent is duty bound to maintain his wife and son. Though the petitioner is earning something that will not absolve respondent No.1 from paying maintenance amount.

¶24

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to pay slip of respondent No.1. It appears that respondent No.1 was drawing salary of Rs.1,08,079/- per month in the year 2014. Latest pay slips are not on record but from the said amount, respondent No.1 is liable to pay amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and son respectively and also has to maintain his parents and other social status. The Trial Court had used its discretion legally and properly. Similarly, the Revisional Court has also appreciated documentary evidence in proper prospective. Therefore, interim maintenance is just and proper. There is no need to interfere with the said order. Petition is dismissed.

¶25

[SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.]

¶26

Ssp 3/3

Keyuree Krunal Gala v. Krunal Bharat Gala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keyuree Krunal Gala v. Krunal Bharat Gala and Ors.

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

M/S. Jet Sonic Audio Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kailas Nivrutti Shirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daud Mohd. Fansopkar Vs the Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. through Nanasaheb D. Tupe and Anr.