Dismissed

Sangram Ganpati Kendre v. Parvatibai W/O. Ganpati Kendre and Another

Bombay HC11 Oct 2023WP/820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging an order directing payment of Rs. 3,000/- monthly maintenance to the petitioner's mother. The court held that since the petitioner had already received the major portion of his commuted pension, his current low draw is meaningless for the purpose of claiming inability to pay.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands dismissed; maintenance order directed by JMFC, Kandhar dated 19.05.2023 is upheld.

1.Petitioner is the son of Respondent No. 1 who takes exception to the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Kandhar directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month under Section 125(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

retired from service of MSRTC as driver and at present he is drawing monthly pension @ Rs. 2,691/- only. Thus, it is his contention that he is unable to pay maintenance as directed by learned Magistrate.

support from the document placed on record to argue that the monthly pension of the Petitioner is less than Rs. 3000/- and hence, it is practically impossible for the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to his mother.

4.Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 opposed the said submission by pointing out that the computation of pension placed on record shows that the amount of pension received by Petitioner is after commutation. He further submits that major portion of the pension is already been received by the Petitioner and therefore, there is no substance in the challenge to order in question on the ground that he does not get sufficient pension.

is aged about 88 years. She is unable to maintain herself. It is moral as well as legal responsibility of Petitioner to take her care. It is unfortunate that Petitioner challenges order of direction of payment of maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the mother. This Court finds substance in the contention of

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that the present pension is drawn after commutation of pension. The calculation of the commutation of pension clearly indicates that the pension now drawn by the Petitioner is after commutation thereof. It cannot be allowed to be claimed by Petitioner now after receiving major portion of pension in advance, to say that he is unable to maintain old age mother showing amount of pension received now. Thus, this Court finds no substance in the challenge to impugned order. Hence, Petition stands dismissed.

Sangram Ganpati Kendre v. Parvatibai W/O. Ganpati Kendre and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Ganpati Kendre v. Parvatibai W/O. Ganpati Kendre and Another

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

Asrar Salim Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikram Jalindar Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Juned Mansoor Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Samadhan Lotan Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Narayanrao Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shriram Govindrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others