Sudhir Vitthal Kale v. Sau.Suvarna Sudhir Kale
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Respondent wife claimed that the Petitioner is serving at Pirangut in Intech Group of Conversant as a Design Officer and earns Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. In addition to this, the wife has also claimed that the Petitioner gets an amount of Rs.45,000/-…
- Para 44. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs. ((( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)
Judgment
Mr.Kishor B.Vidya for the Petitioner. : R.V.MORE, J. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. CORAM : 7th July, 2008. DATED : 7th July, 2008 DATED : 7th July, 2008 DATED P.C. P.C.P.C. . Heard Mr.Vaidya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By the present Writ Petition the petitioner takes exception to the order of family court whereby an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. (Rupees two thousand only) is granted to the Respondent.
The Respondent wife claimed that the Petitioner is serving at Pirangut in Intech Group of Conversant as a Design Officer and earns Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. In addition to this, the wife has also claimed that the Petitioner gets an amount of Rs.45,000/- p.a. (Rupees forty five thousand only) from agricultural land. The contentions of the ( 2 ) Respondent wife however, are denied by the Petitioner. The family Court, held that the Petitioner is able bodied person. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he is physically unfit, unable to earn and consequently unable to pay anything to the Respondent. Taking into account over all circumstances, the Family Court fixed the interim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- p.m.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, I do not see any reason to interfere in the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court vide its impugned order. No ground is made out to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs. ((( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 07 Jul 2008. The bench was R V MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.