Dismissed

Mr. Anil Datta Ghavat v. Smt. Meena Anil Ghavat Alias Ms Meena Kaka Hajare and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2024WP/2775/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an enhanced maintenance order. The court noted that the reliefs sought were already covered by a pending application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the husband against the same order. Finding no infirmity demonstrated in the impugned orders, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhancement order of 3rd January 2020 and revision judgment of 12th May 2022 remained in force.

Mr. Anil Datta Ghavat Vs Smt. Meena Anil Ghavat Alias… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

34-WP-2775-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2775 OF 2023

¶4

Mr. Anil Datta Ghavat

¶5

...Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Meena Anil Ghavat Alias Ms Meena Kaka Hajare And Ors.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Ms. Manisha Keswani for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Dubey for the respondents.

¶10

——————

¶11

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

¶12

Date : 10^th April, 2024.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Petition has been filed seeking prayers which are

¶16

totally incomprehensible at least to this Court. It appears that certain directions are sought so as to expedite Criminal M.A. No.62/2022 and M. P. No.1717/2021 and for stay of the enhanced

¶17

maintenance order dated 3^rd January 2020 passed in

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

rsk

¶20

34-WP-2775-2023.doc

¶21

Miscellaneous Application No.91/2016.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to what are these proceedings which are pending in respect of which reliefs have been sought. All that has been consistently argued is that subsequently certain documents have come to the knowledge of the petitioner which shows that respondent-wife is working and she may be permitted to place the same on record. Upon repeated query by this Court, no explanation is forthcoming as to the relevant facts of the case. Hence this Court was constrained to go through the proceedings itself so as to find out the exact challenge in this petition.

¶23

From the record it appears that application was filed by the respondent wife being M.A. No.91/2016 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance which was granted in the year 2006 of Rs.2,500/each for the respondent-wife and the child. It appears that the J.M.F.C. by order dated 3^rd January 2020 enhanced the amount from Rs.2,500/- each to Rs.8,500/- each. As against this Criminal

¶24

2 of 4

¶25

rsk

¶26

34-WP-2775-2023.doc

¶27

Revision Application No.18/2020 was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge which Revision Application came to be dismissed. In the prayer clause, there is no challenge to this Judgment dated 12^th May 2022 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.18/2020. It appears that subsequently on 17^th June 2022, Application has been filed by the applicant- husband under Section 127 (1) of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of 2006 granting a sum of Rs.2,500/- each as well as the order passed on 3^rd January 2020 granting a sum of Rs.8,500/- each. Learned counsel for respondent submits that those proceedings are pending.

¶28

As there is no challenge to the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.18/2020 by which the Trial Court orders came to be confirmed and nothing has been demonstrated as to the infirmity in the Order of 3^rd January 2020 passed by J.M.F.C. or the Judgment of 12^th May 2022 passed in Criminal Revision Application 18/2020, the petition deserves to be dismissed. That apart, for the same relief which is the subject matter of the present petition an Application has been filed

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

rsk

¶31

34-WP-2775-2023.doc

¶32

under Section 127 (1) of Cr.P.C. challenging the very order of 3^rd January 2020 passed by the J.M.F.C which is stated to be pending. Despite repeated queries by this Court as to whether in view of the Application pending before J.M.F.C the petition be withdrawn, there is no response and irrelevant submissions are being advanced. As there is no infirmity which has been demonstrated to this Court in the Order of 3^rd January 2020 as well as the Judgment of 12^th May 2022, there is no merit in the petition. Petition stands dismissed.

¶33

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶34

4 of 4

¶35

rsk

Mr. Anil Datta Ghavat v. Smt. Meena Anil Ghavat Alias Ms Meena Kaka Hajare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anil Datta Ghavat v. Smt. Meena Anil Ghavat Alias Ms Meena Kaka Hajare and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Mrs. Alka Mahadev Shelke Vs Mr. Namdev Sadu Pokale

Sou Lankabai Krishna Bibe and Ors. Vs Shri Macchindra Krushna Atole and Ors.

G B G Associates through Its Partners and Anr. Vs Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development, Sector No. 24, Pune

Dr. Sandra De Sa Souza vs Natasha Ann Dsouza

Shri.Sureshkumar Shrivallabh Lahoti Vs Shri.Kanhaiyalala Shrivallabh Lahoti

Mrs. Manjula Balkrishna Mhatre and Ors. Vs Krishnarao Govindrao Mhatre through Poa R.G.Bhutra and Ors.