Allowed

Swati Sachin Potdar v. Sachin Sunil Potdar and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2023WP/2924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Family Court order rejecting interim maintenance, streedhan, and protection order. The Court held that the wife's earning is not a bar to maintenance and the Family Court must record prima facie findings before denying relief, remanding the matter within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 8th March 2022 in Misc. App. No. 20 of 2021 set aside; Family Court directed to decide applications within two weeks.

Swati Sachin Potdar Vs Sachin Sunil Potdar and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

41-wp2924-2022 with ia2670-2022.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2022
WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2670 OF 2022

¶6

Digitally signed byATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.01.06 10:50:40 +0530

¶7

Swati Sachin Potdar… Petitioner
V/s.

¶8

Sachin Sunil Potdar & Anr.… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ameya Mahadik with Ms. Sunita Khamkar for the
petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ravindra Vishnu-Laxmi Sankpal for respondent
nos.1 & 2.

¶11

Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for respondent no.3/State.

¶12

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶13

DATED:JANUARY 5, 2023

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1.The petitioner/wife has challenged order dated 8th March
2022 passed by the learned In-charge Judge, Family Court No.7,
Mumbai below Exhibits 7 and 8 in Miscellaneous Application
No.20 of 2021 rejecting application for interim relief of residence,
protection order and maintenance.

¶16

2.On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the relief
of interim maintenance has been rejected only on the ground that
the applicant/wife is earning amount of Rs.23,000/- per month. It
was necessary for the Family Court to take into consideration

¶17

¶18

41-wp2924-2022 with ia2670-2022.doc

¶19

factors mentioned by the Apex Court in paragraphs 77 to 92 in
Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 while arriving at
the conclusion in relation to payment of interim maintenance.
Merely because the wife is earning, by itself is not sufficient
ground to deny the wife interim maintenance.

¶20

3.In relation to the reliefs of streedhan and protection order, it
appears that the Family Court has recorded a finding that there is
no clarity in the document as to whether the articles are received
by the wife, or not. It was necessary for the Family Court to record
prima facie finding about the entitlement of the petitioner for
streedhan and protection order as claimed in the order. It is not
necessary for the Family Court to record a conclusive finding on
the rights of the parties which can obviously be decided at the time
of final disposal of the petition, but at the prima facie stage, on the
basis of material on record, it was necessary for the Family Court
to record a prima facie finding regarding entitlement of the
parties. In absence of such inquiry, the decision-making process by
the learned Family Court is contrary to law. Hence, following
order:

¶21

a)The impugned order dated 8th March 2022 passed by the
learned In-charge Judge, Family Court No. 7, Mumbai below
Exhibits 7 and 8 in Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2021 is set
aside;

¶22

b)Learned Family Court No.7 is directed to decide the
applications below Exhibits 7 and 8 in accordance with law by
granting opportunity of hearing to both the sides in light of the

¶23

¶24

41-wp2924-2022 with ia2670-2022.doc

¶25

observations made in the body of this order;

¶26

c)The said exercise shall be completed within two (2) weeks
from today.

¶27

4. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶28

5.The interim application does not survive and stands disposed
of accordingly.

¶29

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶30

Swati Sachin Potdar v. Sachin Sunil Potdar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Sachin Potdar v. Sachin Sunil Potdar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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.

Mrs. Neeta Yogesh Patankar Vs Mr. Yogesh Yuvraj Patankar

Bhatendra Kumar Gupta Vs Saurabhi Bharatendra Gupta

Mrs. Lisha Abhay Jagtap Vs Abhay Kamlakar Jagtap