Partly allowed

Santosh Hari Chaudhary and Others v. Yamini Santosh Chaudhary and Another

Bombay HC3 Feb 2023WP/1553/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, set aside an order striking off a husband's defence for non-payment of interim maintenance arrears, imposing a four-week deadline to clear dues and a monthly deposit condition.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 26.09.2022 and 22.07.2022 setting aside the defence were quashed and replaced with a conditional order requiring payment of arrears within four weeks and monthly deposits of Rs. 2,000

Santosh Hari Chaudhary and Others Vs Yamini Santosh… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

936.Cri.WP-1553-2022.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1553 OF 2022

¶6

SANTOSH HARI CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

YAMINI SANTOSH CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER

¶9

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ghute Patil Kishor J.
APP for Respondent No.2/State : Mr. P. M. Kulkarni
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Zambare Sudheer R.

¶10

 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
 DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY 2023.

¶11

Per Court :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the learned

¶14

Sessions Judge, Bhusawal in Criminal Revision Application No.59/2022

¶15

dated 26.09.2022, whereby the Revision of the present
petitioner/husband is dismissed. The petitioner/husband had filed a
Revision against the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yawal in PWDVA No.1/2020, thereby
striking of the defence of the petitioner. The order was conditional that

¶16

2 936.Cri.WP-1553-2022.doc

¶17

the petitioner was to clear the amount of arrears of interim
maintenance within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner/husband
could not pay the amount of arrears within the said period and
therefore, his defence is struck off.

¶18

2.The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the valuable
right of defence of the petitioner is now taken away and a great
prejudice would be caused if he is not allowed to put forth his defence.
He submits that in view of changed circumstances, that the petitioner
suffered due to Corona Virus. He has also now become blind. He has
annexed to the petition a disability certificate, showing that he has
incurred 100% disability. This fact is however disputed by the
respondent/wife.

¶19

3.For the present, this Court is only considering that the order
striking out of the defence of the petitioner/husband. It is true that the
valuable right of the husband is taken away by the impugned order
passed by the learned JMFC, Yawal. However, at the same time it needs
to be considered that it is because of the default on the part of the

¶20

3 936.Cri.WP-1553-2022.doc

¶21

petitioner, the Court was required to pass the impugned order. No fault
can be found with the orders passed by the trial Judge and also by the
learned Sessions Judge. However, only considering that the petitioner/
husband has the valuable right to defend the proceeding, this Court is
setting aside the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal in Criminal Revision Application
No.59/2022 and consequently the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by
the learned JMFC, Yawal in PWDVA No.1/2020 is also set aside.

¶22

4. This order shall be subject to condition that the petitioner shall

¶23

clear all the dues of interim maintenance within a period of four weeks
from today and he shall continue deposit 2000/- per month towards
interim maintenance as directed by the learned trial Court. In case of
failure to deposit the arrears within four weeks and further failure to
deposit monthly Rs.2000/-, for consecutively three months, the
defence of the petitioner shall again be liable to be struck off. Needless
to say that the respondent/wife shall be entitled to withdraw the
amount deposited by the petitioner. The amount to be deposited in the
Court of JMFC, Yawal in proceeding i.e. PWDVA No.1/2020.

¶24

¶25

936.Cri.WP-1553-2022.doc

¶26

5. The learned trial Court is requested to make endeavor to dispose

¶27

off the main proceeding as early as possible and preferably within six months from today.

¶28

6. With this, the Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶29

 [ KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

¶30

Najee b .

Santosh Hari Chaudhary and Others v. Yamini Santosh Chaudhary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Hari Chaudhary and Others v. Yamini Santosh Chaudhary and Another

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

Bhagwatsingh Jogsingh Rajput @ Bhagu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Vithoba Tupe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S. Kaverri Seed Company Limited, Aurangabad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Naser Abdul Gani Khan (Deceased) through Manager, Sonu Plastic Workd Shaikh Mujib Khudabaksh Vs Shaikh Salim Shaikh Harun (Punawala)

Pradeep Rajabhau Pardeshi Vs Ramesh Natharam Ghodke Patil

Santosh Ramkrishna Badar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another