Dismissed

Rahul S/O. Annasaheb Falke v. Priyadarshani W/O. Rahul Falke

Bombay HC13 Jan 2023REVN/101/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision application, the Revisional Bench dismissed the petition challenging the maintenance order of the First Class Magistrate. The Bench found no substantial ground for interference as the quantum was determined based on the appellant's income and assets.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application stands dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

Rahul S/O. Annasaheb Falke Vs Priyadarshani W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

958-revn-101-2020.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2020

¶5

RAHUL S/O. ANNASAHEB FALKE
VERSUS
PRIYADARSHANI W/O. RAHUL FALKE

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Tribhuwan Nitin T
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. P.V. Barde

¶7

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

¶8

 DATED : JANUARY 13, 2023

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
counsel for the respondent.

¶11

2.Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after
marriage, the present applicant lost the job; hence, the quantum
determined by the Court is exorbitant.

¶12

3.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife
would argue that the learned Court of first instance has correctly
assigned the reasons and considered the situation on the day of cause
of action. The reasons assigned for determining the quantum were in
tune with the settled law. Still, the applicant has a handsome income

¶13

and he can pay the maintenance granted by the learned Court of first
instance.

¶14

4.Perused the impugned order. The income proof was
placed before the learned Court of first instance; however, taking into

¶15

958-revn-101-2020.odt
(2)

¶16

consideration the stand of the present applicant, the learned Court of
first instance observed that the conduct of the present applicant and
falsity on his part speaks in volume. The petitioner/present
respondent has also filed copies of the 7/12 extract showing that
there was a landed property in the name of the respondent/present
applicant, his father and other members of the family. The learned
Court of first instance observed that when he was working in a
company at Pune, he was earning around Rs.25,000/- per month.
Taking into consideration his ability to earn and landed property, the
learned Court of first instance hold that he was able to provide
separate maintenance to the petitioner/present respondent. The
Court directed him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards
maintenance to the petitioner/present respondent.

¶17

5.After having gone through the reasons and the
documents discussed by the learned Court of first instance, the Court
is of the view that there are no substantial ground to interfere the
impugned order. Hence, the revision application stands dismissed.
6.Record and proceedings be returned to the learned Court

¶18

of first instance.

¶19

 (S.G. MEHARE, J.)

¶20

Mujaheed//

Rahul S/O. Annasaheb Falke v. Priyadarshani W/O. Rahul Falke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul S/O. Annasaheb Falke v. Priyadarshani W/O. Rahul Falke

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

Hari Vitthal Walture Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Prakash Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pintu @ Shrikant S/O. Channu Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrikant Chandrakant Selukar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tariklal Ahileji Darde @ Darade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Sadanand Shinde Vs Rojmery Ashok Shinde