Dismissed

Rajesh Narayan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2021WP/1664/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged interim maintenance directed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge during an appeal against a domestic violence maintenance order. Court found the order was not faulted for lack of jurisdiction. Ordered prompt disposal of the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with direction to Appellate Court to decide the appeal within six months.

Rajesh Narayan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

27-WP-1664-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1664 OF 2021

¶4

Rajesh Narayan Pawar ...Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Subodh Desai i/by Mr. Sandeep Kadam and Hrishikesh Chavan for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Prakash S. Jain for Respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : DECEMBER 04 , 2021.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2 In the domestic violence proceedings instituted

¶10

by the respondent no.2-wife, the Additional Chief

¶11

Metropolitan Magistrate, 4 th Court, Girgaon, after hearing

¶12

the parties, directed petitioner-husband to pay Rs.20,000/-

¶13

Shivgan 1/3

¶14

27-WP-1664-2021.odt

¶15

per month towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application. That order was challenged in the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay. At the admission stage, husband was directed to deposit Rs.1 Lakh. After depositing Rs.1 Lakh, when the matter was heard by in-charge Court, the learned Judge directed husband to Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance till the decision in the appeal. This order is challenged in this petition.

¶16

3 Heard Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the

¶17

petitioner and Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶18

4 In my view, the impugned order cannot be faulted with either for wrong exercise of jurisdiction or for want of jurisdiction. In my view, the order directing the husband to deposit Rs.10,000/- maintenance till the

¶19

Shivgan 2/3

¶20

27-WP-1664-2021.odt

¶21

decision in the appeal is reasonable in the back-drop of the fact that husband is gainfully employed in Dubai.

¶22

5 Be that as it may, no interference is called for in the impugned order. However, the learned Appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably within six months from today.

¶23

6 Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE,J.)

¶25

Shivgan 3/3

Rajesh Narayan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Narayan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Kavita Shyam Seernani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Dr. Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr.

Sudhish Mahabal Hegde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivling Ramdas Narke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pinky Neeraj Kalro Nee Pinky Ramesh Sippy Vs Neeraj Lalchand Kalro and Ors.

Nandlal N. Dave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.