Mohammad v. Asiya
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Aug 2011
- Bench
- A P BHANGALE
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned appellate court has already considered the prayer of the petitioner-husband for reducing the quantum of maintenance allowance and by a reasoned order, the appellate court has brought down the maintenance allowance to Rs. 2000/- from Rs. 3000/- per month. Hence, I am not…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Magistrate directed petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the respondent vide order dated 29.7.2010. In appeal, the appellate court reduced that amount to Rs. 2000/- per month vide judgment and order dated 30.3.2011.
The only grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount of maintenance is on higher side and it may be reduced to Rs. 1500/- pending final disposal of the main application and that the trial Magistrate be directed to dispose of the proceedings as early as possible.
Learned appellate court has already considered the prayer of the petitioner-husband for reducing the quantum of maintenance allowance and by a reasoned order, the appellate court has brought down the maintenance allowance to Rs. 2000/- from Rs. 3000/- per month. Hence, I am not inclined to grant prayer made by the petitioner to reduce the quantum of maintenance allowance and the same is accordingly rejected. However, considering the statement of objects and reasons of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably 2 within a period of three months from the receipt of writ from this Court. Parties are directed to cooperate with the learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal of the proceedings in Misc. Criminal Application No. 305 of 2010. JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 04 Aug 2011. The bench was A P BHANGALE.
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.