Partly allowed

Bhavesh Bhupendra Kansara and Ors. v. Raunak Bhavesh Kansara and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2022REVN/145/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the application filed by the husband for non-payment of maintenance. However, it partly allowed the application filed by the husband and his in-laws, setting aside an impugned order lacking reasons for a compensation direction under the Domestic Violence Act.

What did the court decide?

Clause 4 of the impugned order dated 19th June 2019 is set aside; the application to be decided on merits within three months.

Bhavesh Bhupendra Kansara and Ors. Vs Raunak Bhavesh… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI

¶2

Tauseef Farooqui 27-REVN.145.2022.edited.doc

¶3

Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2022.10.10 18:49:10 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2022

¶6

Bhavesh Bhupendra Kansara & Ors. …Applicants
V/s.

¶7

Raunak Bhavesh Kansara & Anr.…Respondents

¶8

*****

¶9

Ms. Kalpana Trivedi for the Applicants.
Mr. G. T. Kanchanpurkar for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent No.2 (State).

¶11

*****

¶12

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE:OCTOBER 6, 2022

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.Applicant No.1 is the husband. By order dated 19th

¶15

June 2019, the husband-applicant No.1 was directed to pay an
amount of Rs.37,000/- towards maintenance to respondent No.1.

¶16

2.On 4th May 2022, the statement was made on
instructions from applicant No.1 that applicant No.1 is ready to
deposit 30% of arrears of maintenance which was to the tune of
Rs.22,00,000/-. Accordingly, this Court directed the applicants to
deposit Rs.2,50,000/- before the learned Magistrate before 12th

¶17

¶18

Tauseef Farooqui 27-REVN.145.2022.edited.doc

¶19

May 2022, and thereafter, Rs.5,00,000/- till 13th June 2022.

¶20

3.It is undisputed that the order dated 4th May 2022 is
not complied with by applicant No.1-husband. Applicants Nos.2 to
6 are the in-laws of respondent No.1.

¶21

4.In that view of the matter, the Application cannot be
entertained at the instance of applicant No.1 for non-compliance
with the order of this Court and non-payment of the amount of
maintenance. Accordingly, the Application at the instance of
Applicant No. 1 is dismissed.

¶22

5.Insofar as applicants Nos.2 to 6 who are in-laws are
concerned, by impugned order dated 19th June 2019, the learned
Magistrate has directed them to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-
towards compensation. However, a perusal of the order shows that
there are absolutely no reasons why applicants Nos.1 to 6 are
directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is unclear under
which provision of the Domestic Violence Act impugned order has
been passed, nor is there satisfaction about the ingredients of any
of the provisions under the Domestic Violence Act recorded in the
order.

¶23

¶24

Tauseef Farooqui 27-REVN.145.2022.edited.doc

¶25

6.In that view of the matter, in the absence of reasons,
clause 4 of the impugned order cannot be sustained. I, therefore,
pass the following order:

¶26

(i).The Criminal Revision Application No.145 of 2022 at

¶27

the instance of applicant No. 1 stands dismissed.

¶28

(ii). The Application at the instance of Applicant Nos.1 to

¶29

6 is partly allowed to the extent of clause 4. Clause

¶30

4 of the order dated 19th June 2019 is set aside. The
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palghar,
Court No.1 shall re-consider the Application below
the Application under Section 12 filed by respondent
No.1 fresh in accordance with the law.

¶31

(iii). Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the Application shall be decided on
merits within three months from today.

¶32

 (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶33

Bhavesh Bhupendra Kansara and Ors. v. Raunak Bhavesh Kansara and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavesh Bhupendra Kansara and Ors. v. Raunak Bhavesh Kansara and Anr.

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

Sulakshana Parshuram Vharkal Vs Parshuram Sadashiv Vharkal and Anr.

Raju Radhyesham Dadhich @ Sharma Vs Kamal Radhyesham Dadhich and Anr.

K. Vrushali Vs Vasant Sonu Mhatre and Anr.

Patel Developers and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Gangadhar Katkam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kirti Sharma and Anr. Vs the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Anr.