Remanded

Mrs. Neeta Yogesh Patankar v. Mr. Yogesh Yuvraj Patankar

Bombay HC5 Jan 2023WP/2775/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in two connected writ petitions challenging an interim maintenance order, quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, mandating a decision within three months while maintaining the interim payments till then.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed; the matter remanded to the Family Court for fresh decision within three months; interim maintenance to continue till the fresh decision.

Mrs. Neeta Yogesh Patankar Vs Mr. Yogesh Yuvraj… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

40-wp2775-2022 with wp8044-2021.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2775 OF 2022

¶5

Neeta Yogesh Patankar… Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Yogesh Yuvraj Patankar… Respondent

¶8

Digitally signed byATUL ATULGANESH GANESHKULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.01.06 10:28:00 +0530

¶9

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8044 OF 2021

¶10

Yogesh Yuvraj Patankar… Petitioner
V/s.
Neeta Yogesh Patankar… Respondent

¶11

Mr. Abhijit Sarwate with A.M. Udane and Ms. Hardev
Kaur Aidhen for the petitioner in WP/2775/2022 & for
the respondent in WP/8044/2021.

¶12

Mr. Manoj M. Gadkari for the petitioner in
WP/8044/2021 & for the respondent in
WP/2775/2022.

¶13

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶14

DATED:JANUARY 5, 2023

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1.The challenge in both these petitions is to the order dated
28th September 2021passed by the learned Judge, Family Court
No.5, Pune in P.A. No.1201 of 2017. By the impugned order, Family
Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance at
Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.7,500/- to the sons from the date of
application till the decision of the petition.

¶17

¶18

40-wp2775-2022 with wp8044-2021.doc

¶19

2.According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 15,73,500/-
was paid to the wife which has not been dealt with by the learned
Family Court. According to the respondent/wife, the basis of
income arrived at by the Family Court is improper and wrong
calculations has been made by the Family Court while arriving at
the income of the husband. Apart from both issues, various other
issues have been raised by both the parties. The grievance of both
the parties is that in the impugned order the Family Court has not
considered material submissions raised on behalf of the parties.

¶20

3.In that view of the matter, it would be in the interest of
justice to set aside the impugned order and direct the learned
Family Court to decide the application below Exhibit 23 afresh
after taking into consideration contentions raised on behalf of the
husband and wife. Hence, following order:

¶21

a)The impugned order dated 28th September 2021 is quashed
and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court
No.5, Pune for fresh consideration of the application below Exhibit
23;

¶22

b)Till the application below Exhibit 23 is decided, the husband
shall continue to pay the amount as directed by order dated 28th
September 2021;

¶23

c)Considering the controversy involved, the learned Family
Court shall decide the application below Exhibit 23 as
expeditiously as possible, and in any case within three (3) months
from today;

¶24

¶25

40-wp2775-2022 with wp8044-2021.doc

¶26

d)It is made clear that the learned Family Court shall arrive at
the quantum of maintenance after taking into consideration the
contentions raised on behalf of both sides.

¶27

e)It is made clear that all observations made in this order are
only for the purposes of decision of the present petitions and shall
not influence the learned Family Court while re-considering the
application below Exhibit 23.

¶28

4. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶29

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶30

Mrs. Neeta Yogesh Patankar v. Mr. Yogesh Yuvraj Patankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Neeta Yogesh Patankar v. Mr. Yogesh Yuvraj Patankar

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

Shivalik Ventures Vs Adarsh Developers and Ors.

Lalaji Namdeo Kumbhar and Anr. Vs Vishwanath Sukinda Kumbhar and Ors.

Matru Chhaya Cooperative Society Limited and Ors. Vs Mr. Allan Mathew Misquitta and Ors.

Bhatendra Kumar Gupta Vs Saurabhi Bharatendra Gupta

Mrs. Lisha Abhay Jagtap Vs Abhay Kamlakar Jagtap

Swati Sachin Potdar Vs Sachin Sunil Potdar and Anr.