Partly allowed

Sou. Anita Jinchandra Kasturkar v. Shri. Jinchandra Bhalchandra Kasturkar

Bombay HC5 Oct 2021WP/630/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging maintenance orders under the DV Act, the Court made an interim arrangement for continued monthly deposits and directed the Family Court to re-decide a specific application after the instance order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Interim order for respondent to deposit Rs. 10,000/month; direction to Family Court to decide Application-Exhibit-5 afresh.

Sou. Anita Jinchandra Kasturkar Vs Shri. Jinchandra… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

54 . WP-630-2019spktomin.doc

¶2

BDP-SPS-TAC

¶3

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶4

Digitally signed by BHARATDASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2021.10.26 10:16:20 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 630 OF 2019

¶6

Sou Anita Jinchandra Kasturkar….Petitioner
V/s

¶7

Shri Jinchandra Bhalchandra Kasturkar…..Respondent

¶8

Mr. Sandeep S. Koregave for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harshad A. Sathe for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶10

 DATE: OCTOBER 05, 2021

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1] Considering the fact that D.V. Act proceedings are decided

¶13

against the Petitioner wherein she was receiving maintenance of
Rs 10,000/- and statement made by Counsel for the Petitioner-wife

¶14

that order of Sessions Court passed in D.V. Act proceedings on
29/4/2021 will be questioned before this Court, by way of interim
arrangement it is ordered that Respondent-husband shall continue to
deposit an amount of Rs 10,000/- per month on or before 5th day of
every month of English Calendar in Family Court in pending
proceedings being Petition A No. 719/2017.

¶15

2] The aforesaid order is passed keeping in mind source of income

¶16

1/2

¶17

54 . WP-630-2019spktomin.doc

¶18

of the husband. As the order impugned passed below Exh. 5 is based
on fact of payment of maintenance to the wife in D.V. Act proceedings

¶19

which order is also set aside by the Sessions Court on 29/4/2021, it
will be appropriate in my opinion to direct the Family Court to decide
the said Application-Exhibit-5 afresh. Liberty to Petitioner to file
additional affidavit in support of said Exhibit-5. Needless to clarify that
Counsel for Respondent-husband will be given liberty to rebut the
same.

¶20

3] Petition as such stands partly allowed in the above terms.

¶21

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶22

Corrected as per speaking to the minutes order dated 22/10/2021.

¶23

2/2

Sou. Anita Jinchandra Kasturkar v. Shri. Jinchandra Bhalchandra Kasturkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Anita Jinchandra Kasturkar v. Shri. Jinchandra Bhalchandra Kasturkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Malappa Machke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant @ Bhau Mukund Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Reena Maharana Vs Kartik Chandra Maharana S/O. Late Harekrushna Maharana

Sou. Anita Jinchandra Kasturkar Vs Shri. Jinchandra Bhalchandra Kasturkar

Milan Kantilal Gutka Vs Jesal Gutka

Jayesh Bhikulal Bhangdiya Vs Mrs. Nilima Jayesh Bhangdiya