Allowed

Pooja W/O. Nivrutti Gaikwad v. Nivrutti S/O. Hiraman Gaikwad

Bombay HC18 Nov 2022APPLN/3635/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to vacate a stay on the execution of a maintenance order. The court held that the respondent, a Deputy Collector, failed to comply with earlier conditions to deposit Rs. 8,000/month, justifying the vacation of the stay.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the order dated 20.06.2019 granting stay on execution and implementation of the impugned order.

Pooja W/O. Nivrutti Gaikwad Vs Nivrutti S/O. Hiraman… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

947-appln-3635-2018.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3635 OF 2022

¶5

IN REVN/219/2022 WITH REVN/289/2022

¶6

POOJA W/O. NIVRUTTI GAIKWAD ALIAS POOJA SURESHRAO

¶7

DAKRE
VERSUS

¶8

NIVRUTTI S/O. HIRAMAN GAIKWAD

¶9

...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. T.M. Venjane
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. S.V. Deshmukh

¶10

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

¶11

 DATED : 18th NOVEMBER, 2022

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

1.The respondent-wife has filed this application for
vacating the stay granted by this Court to the execution and
implementation of the order impugned before this Court. This Court
by order dated 20.06.2019 has granted stay on condition to deposit
Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
respondent has disobeyed the order of this Court and failed to comply
with the same. He is a Deputy Collector but did not show diligence in
complying with the Court orders. The present applicant has no source

¶15

of income. She has been put to starvation and living at the mercy of
others.

¶16

3.Learned counsel for the present non-applicant would
submit that today in the morning session, the amount of Rs.25,000/-

¶17

947-appln-3635-2018.odt

¶18

(2)

¶19

has been transmitted to the bank account of the wife/present
applicant. However, he could not state that the entire amount of
arrears has been deposited. He also states that he is ready to work
out the matter on merit.

¶20

4.It appears that the present non-applicant failed to comply
with the conditions imposed by this Court while granting stay. It is
not the case that the present non-applicant has no regular income.
He is a Deputy Collector, but he did not pay heed to the Court’s order.
Considering these conditions, it would be appropriate to vacate the
stay order dated 20.06.2019.

¶21

5.Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order
granting stay dated 20.06.2019 to the execution, implementation,
effect and operation of the impugned order is vacated.

¶22

6. List the revision applications on 13.12.2022.

¶23

 (S.G. MEHARE, J.)

¶24

Mujaheed//

Pooja W/O. Nivrutti Gaikwad v. Nivrutti S/O. Hiraman Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja W/O. Nivrutti Gaikwad v. Nivrutti S/O. Hiraman Gaikwad

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

Santosh Chainya S/O. Thakarsha Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jalindhar Goroba Jawle and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Chandrakant Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Virendra S/O Satish @ Sopanrao Kanoji Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay S/O. Bhiwaji Bhingardive Vs Dattatraya S/O. Tanaji Adballe and Anr.

Jaywant Rajabhau Jagtap Vs Dastgir Jilani Shaikh and Others