The High Court considered a writ petition challenging an enhancement in monthly maintenance to Rs. 15,000. The court held that since the Appellate Court had considered relevant factors, interference under Article 227 was not warranted.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to 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.
2023:BHC-AS:26737
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2939 OF 2023
Manish Arun Chaudhari .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
Smt. Sultana Sonawane, Advocate, for the Petitioner
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 08.09.2023
P. C.
1 of 2
and getting gross salary of Rs. 2,12,740/-. As the learned Appellate Court while passing the order taken into consideration the factors which are brought on record, therefore, this is not a case where interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.
costs.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise Article 227 jurisdiction to interfere with an enhancement in maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month.
Whether the factors considered by the Appellate Court warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Manish Arun Chaudhari
The State of Maharashtra
MADHAV J JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
