Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Gopal Tulsidas Bhawanani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 February, 2019

Author: Mridula Bhatkar

Bench: Mridula Bhatkar

Sherla V.


                                                                               wp.2720.2018_16.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2720 OF 2018

            Gopal Tulsidas Bhawanani                                             ... Petitioner
                       Vs.
            The State of Maharashtra                                         ... Respondent



            Ms.Sandhya Mailagir with Pradeep Khithani, Preeti Shinde I/b A.D.
            Joshi for the Petitioner

            Mr.A.R. Patil, APP, for the Respondent - State

            Ms.P.A. Thakker with vidya Dongre for Resp.No.2


                                                CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATED: FEBRUARY 1, 2019 P.C.:

1. Rule. Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 8.2.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27 th Court, Mulund, Mumbai, directing the petitioner/husband to pay interim maintainance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of Page 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2019 00:23:55 ::: wp.2720.2018_16.doc filing of the application i.e., 23.1.2015 till disposal of the application. Thereafter, an application for revocation of the said order dated 8.2.2016 was made by the petitioner/husband which was heard by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and directed the petitioner/husband by order dated 14.11.2017 to pay Rs.1 lakh within 30 days from the date of the order. The petitioner/husband challenged the said order before the Sessions Court by filing Appeal No.774 of 2017. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 29.5.2018 dismissing the said appeal, confirmed the said order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing the husband to pay Rs.1 lakh at once.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband has submitted that the petitioner/husband is residing with the son of the couple separately from his parents and the notice was sent to the house of his parents in his absence and he was not served and, therefore, he had no knowledge of the proceedings when the learned Magistrate passed the first order dated 8.2.2016. She submits that the ex-parte order of maintainance of payment of Rs.20,000/- per month is exorbitant and he is unable to pay Rs.20,000/- while he is looking after their son. Page 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2019 00:23:55 :::

wp.2720.2018_16.doc

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/wife while opposing this petition has submitted that the petitioner/husband has no knowledge of the pendency of the petition for maintainance by the wife. She supported the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and also the learned Sessons Judge.

5. It is found from the record that the interim order of maintainance was passed ex-parte. A valid service of notice is a disputed question of fact. However, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and learned Magistrate directing the petitioner/husband to deposit Rs.1 lakh and thereby the order of learned the Sessions Judge confirming the said order need not be interfered with as the wife is entitled to interim maintainance. This Court does not want to go into the merits as the learned Magistrate has directed to decide the main maintainance application pending from 2015 at the earliest. With this, I dismiss the petition, with the following order:

i) The petitioner/husband is directed to deposit Rs.1 lakh on or before 15.2.2019 and the respondent/wife is allowed to withdraw the said amount thereafter;
Page 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2019 00:23:55 :::

wp.2720.2018_16.doc

ii) The trial Court is directed to decide the main application on or before 31.5.2019. Alternatively, it may hear the interim maintainance application and if it decides to hear the interim maintainance applicatin, the same shall be decided on or before 31.3.2019;

iii) The parties shall cooperate with the trial Court in expeditious disposal of the application.

6. Rule discharged accordingly.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) Page 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2019 00:23:55 :::