Allowed

Sushil Prafulla Mankar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2024IA/2758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this interim application, the High Court of Bombay granted the applicant six weeks to pay remaining maintenance arrears of Rs. 19 lakhs. The court passed an undertaking-based order staying the distress warrant and clarified its implications upon compliance or breach.

What did the court decide?

Time to clear arrears of Rs. 19,00,000 extended by six weeks; distress warrant stayed and liable to be cancelled on timely payment.

Sushil Prafulla Mankar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by IRESH IRESH MASHAL MASHAL Date: 2024.07.22 13:25:41 +0530

¶2

903.2758.24 IA.docx

¶3

Iresh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2758 OF 2024 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION ST NO. 2146 OF 2024

¶7

Sushil Prafulla Mankar

¶8

.....Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Maharashtra and Anr

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Mr. Hemant Ingle a/w Mr. Pratik Ingle i/b Mr. Vedang Deshpande for the applicant

¶13

Mr. A. R. Metkari APP for the State

¶14

Mr. Waqar Pathan i/b Mr. Wesley Menezes for respondents

¶15

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 18^th JULY 2024

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This application is filed in a disposed of writ petition seeking

¶18

extension of time to pay the remaining arrears of Rs. 19,00,000/- as

¶19

directed by order dated 7^th May 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per order dated 7^th May 2024, last date for

¶20

completing the arrears which was 16^th July 2024. However, he was

¶21

unable to complete the entire arrears which was to the tune of Rs.

¶22

48,00,000/-. He submits that amount of Rs. 29,00,000/- is already

¶23

1/3

¶24

903.2758.24 IA.docx

¶25

paid, however, as on date, the arrears is of Rs. 19,00,000/-. Learned counsel submits that extension of six weeks be granted to pay the remaining arrears of Rs. 19,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that monthly maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- is regularly paid to respondent no. 2.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 opposes the extension of time on the ground that, even monthly maintenance has been paid by the petitioner only after orders are passed by this Court. He, however, does not dispute that the amount of Rs. 29,00,000/- is already paid and monthly maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- is also regularly paid.

¶27

Hence, considering the aforesaid, I am inclined to grant six weeks time to clear the remaining arrears. Hence, interim application is allowed by passing following order:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(i) Applicant shall file an undertaking in this Court

¶30

within two weeks from today stating that the balance arrears of Rs. 19,00,000/- shall be paid within six weeks

2/3

903.2758.24 IA.docx

from today.

(ii) Subject to applicant filing such an undertaking, time

¶35

to clear the arrears of Rs. 19,00,000/- is extended by six weeks from today.

¶36

(iii) It is clarified that if undertaking is not filed or there is breach of the undertaking, present application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶37

(iv) Subject to applicant filing the aforesaid undertaking, the distress warrant issued for recovering the arrears of maintenance shall not be implemented. It is further clarified that if the aforesaid undertaking is complied with and the entire arrears of Rs. 19,00,000/- are cleared within the time granted, the distress warrant for recovering the arrears shall stand cancelled.

¶38

Interim application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶39

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶40

3/3

Sushil Prafulla Mankar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Prafulla Mankar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Raymond R Texeira vs Shri Maxcy Roque Texeira

Shree Kaleshwari Devi Trust Thr Ramdas Shankar Vende and Ors. vs Maruti Bandu Gurav Since Dec Thr Lrs and Ors.

Taralekar Motars Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Director vs Estate Officer Central Railways Pune Drm Office

Dharmadas Ramchandra Gatkule Since Deceased through Hiers 1A Pramila Dharmadas Gatkule vs Ujwala Sudam Gidde

Bandu Ramchandra Patil(Deceased) vs Rohit Dhanaji Salunke

Rajashree Sameer Chauhan vs Sameer Karmavir Chauhan