Dismissed

Kashish Virendrakumar Jain v. Anuj Kashish Jain and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2023WP/3827/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order refusing to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC after wife's appeal against interim maintenance was dismissed due to suppression of facts regarding employment. Court dismissed petition, noting settled principle that Section 340 cannot be used for private grudges and that petitioner had not earlier challenge rejection.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no directions for initiating Section 340 proceedings.

Kashish Virendrakumar Jain Vs Anuj Kashish Jain and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Chitra Sonawane WP-3827-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.3827 of 2018

¶4

Kashish Virendrakumar Jain … Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mrs Anuj Kashish Jain

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent.

¶8

Mr Vaibhav Birmole, Advocate i/by Mr Yusuf R. Singh for petitioner.

¶9

Mr HJ Dedhia, APP for State/Respondent-2.

¶10

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 5 October 2023.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The petitioner, Kashish Jain, filed a petition against the order dated 25.7.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.259 of 2017. The order refused to initiate the proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶13

In Other Misc.Criminal Application No.305 of 2015, the learned trial Court directed the petitioner, who is the husband of

¶14

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 5 October 2023

¶15

Chitra Sonawane WP-3827-2018.doc

¶16

the first respondent, to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the applicant/first respondent and their daughter Anvesha by an order dated 6.7.2015. The petitioner challenged this order of interim maintenance by way of appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, contending that the respondent was employed and that she had filed a false case against him for getting maintenance only to harass him.

¶17

The respondent/wife in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2015 falsely claimed that she had no source of income and denied being gainfully employed, during the hearing. This led to the dismissal of the appeal due to suppression of facts and falsity in her statement.

¶18

After examining the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court granted the respondent/wife’s prayer for interim maintenance. The petitioner/husband challenged this order in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2015, however, the appeal was dismissed. In the appeal, the respondent/wife did not file any reply. Other Misc.Criminal Application No.305 of 2015 is still awaiting final adjudication. Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2015 was decided on 20.8.2016, and the respondent/wife’s evidence in Other Misc.Criminal Application No.305 of 2015 was recorded on

¶19

Page No. 2 of 3

¶20

5 October 2023

¶21

Chitra Sonawane WP-3827-2018.doc

¶22

15.01.2017, after the appeal was decided. During the trial, the petitioner has an opportunity to prove that the respondent/wife is gainfully employed and to refute her claim.

¶23

Moreover, it is seen from the records that the petitioner/husband had filed an application (Exh.116) in Other Misc.Criminal Application No.305 of 2015 under Section 340 CrPC, which was rejected on its own merits on 8.11.2017. However, the petitioner/husband has not challenged this decision.

¶24

Even otherwise, it is a settled principle in law that this provision cannot be used to satisfy a private grudge of the litigant.

¶25

For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶26

R.N.Laddha, J.

¶27

Page No. 3 of 3

¶28

5 October 2023

Kashish Virendrakumar Jain v. Anuj Kashish Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashish Virendrakumar Jain v. Anuj Kashish Jain and Anr.

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

Sukumar Bandu Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jagannath Laxman Mondkar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jagannath Laxman Mondkar

Gac Shipping (India) Pct., Ltd., and Anr. Vs Union of India through Dadi Sunil

Sumit Jain Vs Ranjan Dilip Vanigota and Anr.

Girimon P.T. Vs Murtaza Merchant and Anr.