The Writ Petitioner filed a petition to interfere with an impugned maintenance order directing him to pay Rs. 8,500 per month to his wife. The petitioner admitted non-compliance but highlighted his income as an Assistant Teacher. The Court found the lower order was within discretion, dismissing the petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
11-WP-1934-2023.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1934 OF 2023
Baraku Rama Jadhav …Petitioner
V/s.
Rekha Baraku Jadhav & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Anilkumar Patil, for the Petitioner. Ms. Pooja Malik i/b N. R. Bubna, for Respondent No.1. Mr. M. G. Patil, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2023
P.C.:
1. By the order dated 8th September 2023 this Court has
passed the following order :-
“1. By the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District – Nasik in Criminal Revision Application No. 82 of 2017, maintenance of Rs.8,500/- per month has been directed to be paid from the date of the Application i. e. with effect from 07.04.2011. To show bona fides, the Petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the wife immediately i. e. on or before 15.09.2023 and pay additional Rs. 3,00,000/- in the account of Respondent No. 1 – wife on or before 05.10.2023. On the said condition, ad interim relief that no coercive steps be taken is granted till the
1
11-WP-1934-2023.doc
next date i. e. 06.10.2023.
2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly states that his client has not complied with the said order.
3. By the order dated 27th March 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon by which maintenance of Rs.8,500/- per month was directed to be paid to the Respondentwife w.e.f. 7th April 2011.
4. It is admitted position that not a single Rupee has been paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent-wife. It is also admitted position that the Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in grant-in-aid school. The salary slip which has been produced at the relevant time shows that his income was about Rs.47,000/per month.
5. Therefore, this is not a case where interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was warranted in interfering with the lower court's maintenance order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the Petitioner's non-compliance with the maintenance payment order justified High Court intervention.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baraku Rama Jadhav
Rekha Baraku Jadhav & Anr.
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
