Dismissed

Santosh Joshi v. Madhvi

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2018CMA/1935/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed the civil appeal against a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance of ₹4,000. The High Court found no infirmity in the lower court's view that the appellant's income was insufficiently proven despite allegations of romeans potential earnings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the maintenance order of ₹4,000 per month and ₹200 per hearing.

Santosh Joshi Vs Madhvi — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1935/2018

¶3

Santosh Joshi S/o Hemraj Joshi, Age 32 Years, R/o Jain Mohalla Munder, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Madhvi W/o Shri Santosh Joshi, Age 24 Years, B/c Brahman, R/o Munder, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur (Raj.) Presently Residing At C/o Kantilal Pandiya, Village Bodigama Choti, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.A. Sharma For Respondent(s) : ---

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

03/12/2018

¶12

The appeal has been filed after 7 days of the period of limitation expiring. Court fees has not been affixed on the appeal. Objections raised by the Registry have not been removed till date.

¶13

Overlooking the defects not being rectified we have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶14

Challenge to a judgment dated 08.06.2018 deciding respondent’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Monthly maintenance awarded is ₹4,000/- per month from the date the respondent filed the application seeking maintenance. ₹200/- per hearing for the expenses borne by the respondent to attend the court hearing have additionally been directed to be paid to the respondent.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CMA-1935/2018]

¶17

As per the respondent the appellant was running a canteen in Mumbai and his monthly income was 50,000/-. In the reply₹ filed the appellant did not traverse the allegation of he being in Mumbai but claimed that he was not running a canteen. He claimed to be working in a canteen.

¶18

In the absence of any proof by the respondent that the appellant was the owner of the canteen her allegation that the appellant was earning ₹50,000/- per month has not been accepted. With reference to the fact that the appellant was working in a canteen in Mumbai the view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court is that in the city of Mumbai the cost of living is high. It could be presumed that the appellant was earning wages between 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. On said basis₹ ₹ ₹4,000/- per month as maintenance has been awarded to the respondent.

¶19

We find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court.

¶20

The appeal is dismissed.

¶21

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶22

Mohit Tak/-

Santosh Joshi v. Madhvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Joshi v. Madhvi

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

The State of Rajasthan Vs Pawan Singh

Vipul Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Singh Yadav Vs Union of India

Chandan Mal Vs State and Ors.

Teejo Vs Union of India

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan