Dismissed

Hussain Azim Khan and Ors. v. Zarin Hussain Khan and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2024APL/715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application challenging an order restraining disturbance of possession and granting maintenance. The judge held that available evidence did not prove remarriage, affirmed the reasonableness of maintenance for three minor children, and refused interference.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without merits; interim maintenance order and restraint order remain intact.

Hussain Azim Khan and Ors. vs Zarin Hussain… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904-APL-715-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 715 OF 2024

¶4

Hussain Azim Khan And Ors. ...Applicants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Zarin Hussain Khan And Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh a/w Adv. Hitanshi Gajaria, Snigdha Khandelwal, for the Applicants.

¶8

Mr. A. A. Palkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 21^st JUNE 2024

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The application questions the order dated 07.02.2024

¶12

passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai by which the Applicants have been restrained from disturbing peaceful possession of respondent No.1 and the children from Room No.9 Deluxe Chawl No.2, Group No.4 , Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai (East) Mumbai83 and so also granting 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and the three minor sons, which amount includes the

¶13

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date: 2024.06.21 16:32:35 +0530

¶14

expenses for education and otherwise of the children.

1 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

904-APL-715-2024.doc

learned counsel for the Applicants upon instructions makes a statement that in so far as the first part of the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 is concerned, the Applicants would not take the law into their hands, but in case they desire to evict the respondent No.1 from the said premises would do so only by following due process of law by instituting proceedings for eviction in the Court of law, and not otherwise.

¶19

In so far as the claim regarding maintenance is concerned, the learned counsel contends that the respondent No.1 has married respondent No.2 and therefore is not entitled for maintenance. That plea at the most, if established, would dis-entitle the respondent No.1 from maintenance, however, the Applicants still would be liable to pay maintenance for the three minor children. The claim of marriage of the respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 is based upon a photograph at page-48 and the Whats-app chats at page-49. In my considered opinion these two documents do not demonstrate the factum of marriage, which will have to be established by leading cogent evidence in the proceedings

2 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

904-APL-715-2024.doc

under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

Since it is not disputed that there are three children even

¶25

if the claim of the respondent No.1 for maintenance is ignored, still the amount of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable as maintenance for three children, who are growing up. Considering which, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The application is therefore without any merits and is dismissed.

¶26

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

¶28

Sajakali Jamadar

Hussain Azim Khan and Ors. v. Zarin Hussain Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussain Azim Khan and Ors. v. Zarin Hussain Khan and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pramod Narendra Narvekar vs Deputy Registrar, Sahakari Sanstha, R-North Ward, Mumbai and Ors.

Vilaschandra Chandamal Gandhi and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Coopertion and Orsand Ors.

Mukteshwar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Minister and Ors.

Tata Capital Limited vs Geeta Passi and Anr.

Pavan Bhagwan Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Harichandra Ramchandra Ghadi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra