Allowed

Mr. Hemant Lalit Khemani v. Mrs. Prerna Hemant Khemani

Bombay HC3 Mar 2020WP/2833/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking return of interim maintenance deposited by the petitioner after parties executed a mutual consent divorce decree wherein the wife received permanent alimony instead of future maintenance claims. Court directed remittance of the amount.

What did the court decide?

The interim maintenance amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be remitted to him within two weeks.

Mr. Hemant Lalit Khemani Vs Mrs. Prerna Hemant Khemani — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

25.WP-2833-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2833 OF 2019

¶4

Mr.Hemant Lalit Khemani … Petitioner versus Mrs.Prerna Hemant Khemani … Respondent

¶5

Ms.Minal Chandnani for the Petitioner.

¶6

None for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM :- SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶8

DATE :- MARCH 3, 2020

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the judgment and decree delivered by the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra in Petition No.A-3000/2016 (Shri Hemant Lalit Khemani vs. Smt.Prerna Hemant Khemani).

¶11

By the judgment dated 1^st October, 2019, the petition initially fled under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner/husband was converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B. The parties agreed for mutual divorce subject to the Consent Terms submitted to the Court and the decree was drawn by the Court in terms of the Consent Terms. By the said Consent Terms, the

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶14

25.WP-2833-19.doc

¶15

petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent/wife towards her claim of permanent alimony/ maintenance for past, present and future. It was agreed that the amount would be paid by way of Demand Draft, on the day of decree of divorce. The Consent Terms also mention that in view of the full and fnal settlement for consent divorce, neither parties shall have any claim of whatsoever nature in future in movable or immovable property of each other and the respondent/wife agreed to withdraw all the criminal complaints, allegations fled against the petitioner and his family. The said decree of the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra is placed on record. It is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identifcation.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that in view of the said judgment and decree, nothing remains in the petition to be adjudicated since the said petition pose a challenge to an order passed on an application claiming interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She would submit that in terms of the fnal decree passed, the petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶17

The learned counsel, however, invited my attention to an order dated 19^th March, 2019 passed by this Court. The said order directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of interim

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶20

25.WP-2833-19.doc

¶21

maintenance in terms of the impugned order in the Court within a period of two weeks and subject to such deposit, the stay was granted in favour of the petitioner/husband against the execution proceedings. The petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.2,86,000/- on 29^th March, 2019 in the Registry of this Court. The said amount is lying in this Court.

¶22

The counsel for the petitioner submit that in view of the fnal settlement being worked out between the parties, she do not press the present writ petition, but makes a request that the amount deposited by the petitioner towards interim maintenance in terms of the order impugned, which was assailed before the Court, should be returned to the petitioner.

¶23

The fact that from 29^th March, 2019, the respondent did not make any move to withdraw the amount and the further development that on 1^st October, 2019, she has given up her claim for past, present and future maintenance in lieu of the amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, which she received by way of permanent alimony,

¶24

I see no hitch in allowing the petitioner to take the amount of Rs.2,86,000/- back as the claim of the respondent has been settled for a fxed permanent alimony for past, present and future claim of maintenance.

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶27

25.WP-2833-19.doc

¶28

The wit petition is, therefore, permitted to be withdrawn with a direction to the Registry to remit the amount of Rs.2,86,000/- (Rs.Two Lakh Eighty Six Thousand only) to the petitioner deposited by him on 29^th March, 2019 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶29

(SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶30

Page 4 of 4

¶31

M.M.Salgaonkar

Mr. Hemant Lalit Khemani v. Mrs. Prerna Hemant Khemani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Hemant Lalit Khemani v. Mrs. Prerna Hemant Khemani

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

Kutubuddin Kashim Shaikh (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Jaibundi K. Shaikh (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Gaus Kutubuddin Shaik Vs Imamuddin Kashim Shaikh and Ors.

Chandrakant Shivram Upadhye and Ors. Vs Vanraj Shant Upadhye and Ors.

Kutubuddin Kashim Shaikh (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Jaibundi K. Shaikh (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Gaus Kutubuddin Shaik Vs Imamuddin Kashim Shaikh and Ors.

Rajesh Shrikant Naik Vs Mrs. Sandhya Rajesh Naik

Jigisha Jairaj Mistry Vs Jairaj Shashikant Mistry

Shri. Somnath @ Amol Ramakant Pandit Vs Sou. Deepali Somnath @ Amol Pandit