Allowed

Sonam Swarup Godghate v. Swarup Babanrao Godghate

Bombay HC18 Dec 2023REVN/383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision application challenges a Sessions Court order that reduced domestic violence maintenance for residence. The High Court held the reduction was arbitrary as total income was not considered and quashed the order, remanding it for rehearing within four months.

What did the court decide?

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2020 quashed; appeal remanded to Sessions Court for rehearing.

Sonam Swarup Godghate Vs Swarup Babanrao Godghate — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2023

¶3

Sonam Swarup Godghate...Applicant
V/s.
Swarup Babanrao Godghate &… Respondents
Anr

¶4

Mr. Naman Jagri, for the Applicant.

¶5

Mr. Mohan Rawat with Ms. Sadhana Singh, for the Respondent No. 1.

¶6

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL,J.

¶7

DATE :18TH DECEMBER, 2023.

¶8

PC:

¶9

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD

¶10

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2023.12.20 16:59:39 +0530

¶11

1.The present Criminal Revision Application filed by the
petitioner-wife challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11th
September 2023 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai in application
filed by her to provide residence.

¶12

2.The Petitioner-wife has filed the DV complaint before the
57th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kurla, Mumbai. In the said DV
complaint the Petitioner-wife filed an Interim Application to provide
her residence. By its order dated 20th August 2020, the learned MM
Court has directed the Respondent – husband to grant Rs.12,000/-
p.m. to the Petitioner-wife. It was also directed that the said amount of

¶13

46-revn-383-2023.doc

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

varsha

¶16

Rs.12,000/- will be directly deducted from the salary of Respondent-
husband. However, learned Sessions Judge without giving any
adequate reasons has modified the order passed by the 57th MM Court,
Kurla, Mumbai and has reduced the amount granted for the purpose of
residence of Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.

¶17

3.Admittedly, the Petitioner is also granted a sum of Rs.
2,000/- p.m from the Family Court at Nashik in Divorce Petition No.
518 of 2018. It is also further admitted that no amount has been paid
to the Petitioner-wife by the Respondent – husband in the Family Court
proceedings.

¶18

4.It is also admitted that gross salary of Respondent –
husband is Rs. 67,112/- p.m. as of August 2020. Further the Advocate
for the Respondent pointed out that there is a deduction of Rs.27,340/-
from the said salary. Therefore, according to her net salary is only Rs.
39,772/- p.m.

¶19

5.It has been submitted by learned Advocate for the
Petitioner that father of the Respondent – husband is retired person
from Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtra as Class-II
Officer and father of the Respondent-husband is receiving pension
from the State of Maharashtra.

¶20

6.I have perused the salary slip of the Respondent – husband
as of August 2023. It appears that the net amount is calculated after
deduction of Rs. 12,000/- as “Court Recovery”. Therefore, net salary of
the Respondent – husband should around of Rs. 51,772/- p.m.

¶21

46-revn-383-2023.doc

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

varsha

¶24

7.The Sessions Court has not taken into consideration while
passing the impugned order what is total income of Respondent-
husband. In such a case suffice would be the purpose if the impugned
order dated 11th September 2023 passed by the Sessions Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2020, is quashed and set aside and the
Sessions Court is directed to re-hear the Criminal Appeal No. 279 of
2020. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

I.The judgment and order dated 11^th September 2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶27

II.The Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2020 be heard by the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge should make an endeavour to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2020 within a period of four months from today. In the meantime, the directions given by the 57^th MM Court, Kurla, Mumbai by its order dated 20^th August 2020 should be complied by Respondent-husband and the employer of Respondent-husband as done after the passing of the order dated 20^th August 2020.

¶28

III.Parties are granted liberty to submit documents before the Sessions Court.

¶29

8.Copy of this order should also be served on the employer of

¶30

46-revn-383-2023.doc

¶31

3 of 4

¶32

varsha

¶33

Respondent-husband so as to they can comply with the directions
granted by this Court.

¶34

9. Criminal Revision Application accordingly disposed of.

¶35

10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶36

 (RAJESH D. PATIL, J)

¶37

46-revn-383-2023.doc

¶38

4 of 4

¶39

varsha

Sonam Swarup Godghate v. Swarup Babanrao Godghate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonam Swarup Godghate v. Swarup Babanrao Godghate

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

Christopher Fernandes Vs Nirmala Fernandes and Anr.

Chetan Hareshwar Sawe Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Neetu W/O Shilpesh Champaneria Vs Shilpesh Mukeshbhai Champaneria and Ors.

Shri. Abdul Aziz Mohamad Yusuf and Ors. Vs Shri. Tokarshi Devraj Gada and

Shri. Abdul Aziz Mohamad Yusuf and Ors. Vs Shri. Tokarshi Devraj Gada and

Jitendra Uttam Jadhav Vs Mani Jitendra Jadhav and Ors.