Quashed

Sourabh Shilwant Ghodake v. Samita Sourabh Ghodake and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2023WP/1179/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed lower court orders in matrimonial maintenance dispute on consent. Ordered parties to file asset affidavits per Rajnesh vs. Neha and direct Magistrate to decide maintenance quantum independently.

What did the court decide?

Quashed District Court orders; directed parties to file affidavit of assets; remanded maintenance application to Magistrate for fresh decision.

Sourabh Shilwant Ghodake Vs Samita Sourabh Ghodake… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

39-wp1179-2019.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1179 OF 2019

¶5

Sourabh Shilwant Ghodake… Petitioner
V/s.

¶6

Samita Sourabh Ghodake & Ors.… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Kalyani Mangana i/by V.V. Purwant for the
respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED:MARCH 28, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. By consent of the parties following order is passed.

¶14

2.The impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned
District Judge-13, Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 23rd
January 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2018, setting aside
judgment and order below Exhibit-5 dated 12th January 2018 in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1900 of 2017 is quashed
and set aside.

¶15

3.Parties shall file affidavit of assets and liability as per the
judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324.

¶16

4. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class shall decide the

¶17

¶18

39-wp1179-2019.doc

¶19

application of respondent No.1 for maintenance afresh.

¶20

5.During pendency of the application, the applicant shall
continue to pay amount of interim maintenance as directed by the
impugned order.

¶21

6.However, it is made clear that the quantum of maintenance
shall be decided by the Magistrate uninfluenced by fact of
direction to pay as per impugned order.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Sourabh Shilwant Ghodake v. Samita Sourabh Ghodake and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sourabh Shilwant Ghodake v. Samita Sourabh Ghodake and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bata India Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ekta Sharma Donde Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Mohd Khalid Mukhtar Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Anand Rao Vs Dr. Sanjay Hariprasad Kanoji and Anr.

Dnyandeo Vithal Netake Vs Laxmi Dnyandeo Netke