Disposed

Prashant S/O Bindaprasad Dixit v. Shalini W/O Prashant Dixit and Another

Bombay HC6 Jan 2023APL/396/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision application, the court set aside the impugned order that rejected the applicant's request to cancel a distress warrant for maintenance recovery. The court noted that the underlying appellate order regarding maintenance quantum lacked clarity. Liberty was granted for cross-clarifications and further steps once specific directions are issued.

What did the court decide?

Ordertoclaim in the appeal for cancellation of the distress warrant is restored, and liberty granted for cross-clarifications on quantum of arrears and issuance of fresh warrant post-clarification.

Prashant S/O Bindaprasad Dixit Vs Shalini W/O… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

apl396.18.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.396 OF 2018

¶5

Prashant s/o Bindraprasad Dixit Aged about 43 years, R/o P.H. Nagar, Ramala Dam Old Power House, Udday Road, Chandrapur.

¶6

...APPLICANT

¶7

---VERSUS---

¶8

Shalini w/o Prashant Dixit Aged about 33 years

¶9

Ku. Kanad D/o Prashant Dixit Minor through natural guardian Non-applicant no.1

¶10

Both R/o C/o Dr. Lohiya, R/o Seloo, Taluka ...NON-APPLICANTS Seloo, District Wardha

¶11

Shri Dheeraj Kanwale, Advocate for applicant.

¶12

CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J. DATE : JANUARY 06, 2023.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶14

Heard the learned advocate for the applicant. Nonapplicants though served are absent.

¶15

In this revision, the challenge is to the order dated 09.04.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.13 of

¶16

2017 below Exhibit-18 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

¶17

Class, Seloo, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject

¶18

the application made by the applicant for cancellation of distress

¶19

apl396.18.odt

¶20

¶21

warrant for recovery of maintenance in the divorce proceedings. It appears that as per the order dated 16.01.2018 passed in P.W.D.V. Appeal no.29 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, the applicant was directed to pay 2,00,000/- to the non-₹ applicant/wife including the payment made earlier and he was further directed to continue to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the trial Court towards maintenance till the decision of the appeal.

¶22

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that in the distress warrant additional amount has been claimed. The amount of 2,00,000/- would include the amount of maintenance, which₹ was already paid.

¶23

Perusal of the order would show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.01.2018 has not clarified the actual amount due and payable on the date of the order of 16.01.2018. It appears that therefore the learned Magistrate has calculated the amount mentioned in distress warrant. In view of this, the order passed below the application Exhibit-18 needs to be set aside. The order is accordingly set aside.

¶24

The application for cancellation for distress warrant be restored to the file and heard and decided the same finally.

¶25

It is necessary to state that since the order dated

¶26

apl396.18.odt

¶27

¶28

16.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not clear and specific with regard to the quantum of the actual amount, the applicant would be liable to pay, liberty is granted to the applicant to apply before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in P.W.D.V. Appeal no.29 of 2017 for seeking clarification of this part of the order. If the applicant applies for clarification of the order and for issuance of specific directions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose of the said application within ten days by granting an opportunity of hearing to the nonapplicant/wife. After specific clarification of this order, the wife would be entitled to apply for distress warrant afresh by stating the actual amount.

¶29

Learned advocate submits that applicant has deposited 50% of the amount of the maintenance in terms of the order dated 16.01.2018.

¶30

His statement is accepted. However, liberty is granted to the wife to place on record the actual statement of arrears paid/not paid, as per the order dated 16.01.2018.

¶31

The application stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Wagh

Prashant S/O Bindaprasad Dixit v. Shalini W/O Prashant Dixit and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant S/O Bindaprasad Dixit v. Shalini W/O Prashant Dixit and Another

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

M/S Green City Builders, through Its Partner, Shri Abid Shabbir Khan and 2 Others vs Shri Rajendra Vishwanath Choudhary, through P.O.A. Shri Ashish S/O Rajendra Choudhary and Another

Ganesh Daulat Kharat vs Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Washim and Others

Hanumantu M. Jangantiwar Vs Sanjay Raghunath Tumane and Another

M/S Shrid Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Thr.Its MD Shriyash Shashikant Kulkarni Vs M/S Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd. Thr. Its Authorisd Person Shri. Yatin Babulal Mehta

Moreshwar S/O Sambhaji Udise Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ballarpur Tq.Ballarpur Dist.Chandrapur

Dharmendra S/O Puranraoji Jadhav Vs Pravina W/O Dharmendra Jadhav (Maiden Name Ku. Pravina D/O. Rajkumarji Tagde) and Another.