Allowed

Rojmery W/O Ashok Shinde v. Ashok Sadanand Shinde

Bombay HC6 Jul 2021APPLN/923/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the husband's revision against a Family Court maintenance order. While the wife's separate residence was admitted, the court permitted her to withdraw 50,000 INR from deposited arrears subject to furnishing security, to avoid idle funds during the pendency of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The respondent/wife is allowed to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the petitioner, subject to undertaking to return money if ordered and furnishing security to the Family Court.

Rojmery W/O Ashok Shinde Vs Ashok Sadanand Shinde — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

{1}

¶2

 913 sr.no..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

913 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.923/2021 IN REVN/34/2020

¶5

ROJMERY ASHOK SHINDE VERSUS

¶6

ASHOK SADANAND SHINDE

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for resopndent : Ms. Kshitija G. Sarangi

¶8

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

¶9

 DATE : 06.07.2021.

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

1]Heard both sides. In this revision preferred by the husband
against the respondent/wife, inter-alia, impugning the order of the
Family Court, Ahmednagar, awarding her maintenance under Section 125
of Cr.P.C., he was directed to deposit 30% of the amount of arrears as a
condition precedent for grant of stay to the operation of the impugned
order, by order dated 29.06.2021. Taking note of the objections being
raised on behalf of respondent/wife, the learned Advocate for the
applicant was granted time to make calculations. Advocate Ms. Kshitija
Sarangi, today conceded that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by
the petitioner/husband is not 30% of the amount of arrears.

¶12

2]In addition, learned Advocate Ms. Sarangi submits that in

¶13

 913 sr.no..odt

¶14

fact, respondent/wife was residing separability with mutual consent
which dis-entitles her to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
The applicant would be put to irreparable loss and inconvenience if she is
allowed to withdraw money when the husband is strenuously impugning
the order granting maintenance to her.

¶15

3]The revision would take some time to decide. It is a
question of amount of maintenance. The relationship between the
parties stands admitted. There is also no dispute that she is residing
separately. In the circumstances, she deserves to be allowed to withdraw
the amount subject to furnishing usual securities, instead of allowing the
money to remain idle till conclusion of the revision.

¶16

4]The application is allowed. The respondent/wife is allowed
to withdraw an amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the petitioner
husband in this court subject to following conditions :-

¶17

[a] She undertakes to return the money in case so ordered
in future.

¶18

[b]She furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Family
Court.

¶19

5]The amount be transmitted to the Family Court,
Ahmednagar, which shall now allow the respondent/wife to withdraw
the money as per this order.

¶20

[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE.

¶21

grt/-

Rojmery W/O Ashok Shinde v. Ashok Sadanand Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rojmery W/O Ashok Shinde v. Ashok Sadanand Shinde

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

Bharat Jagannath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Bapuraoji Gulkari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamlakar Dattatraya Chikhle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gajanan Narhari Karpe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nanda D/O. Sopan Kardile @ Nanda W/O. Dnyandeo Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ushadevi W/O. Jaydeep Kakade Vs Nanasaheb S/O. Vinayak Kokate and Others