SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1099

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
VICKY S/O. GORGE RATHOD AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
ANITA W/O. VICKY RATHOD AND ANR – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

How to determine maintenance under DV Act, 2005 when appellate court re-evaluates evidence? What is what are the grounds to interfere with maintenance orders under Article 227 jurisdiction? What is the appropriate quantum of maintenance for wife and minor daughter given the salary evidence?

Key Points: - The court upheld the appellate court's maintenance order and emphasized evidence in domestic violence cases (!) (!) . - The petition under Article 227 challenged prior maintenance orders and the High Court did not interfere, affirming the appellate court's findings (!) (!) . - The maintenance awarded: Rs.2500 per month to wife and Rs.1500 to minor daughter, based on petitioner’s salary Exh.31 (Rs.8602 gross) (!) . - The case discusses relevant statutory provisions: DV Act, Section 3, and maintenance considerations under case law cited (Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury; Dr. Kulbhushanan Kumar v. Raj Kumari) (!) . - The mediation report was considered, noting mediation failed and marked for identification (!) . - The petitioners’ arguments included restitution of conjugal rights and alleged lack of evidence of domestic violence; appellate findings addressed these (!) (!) (!) . - The order was defended as just and proper given evidence on record and salary details (!) (!) . - Fees for appointed counsel from Legal Services Authority were provided (!) . - The court’s coram and date: Y.G. Khobragade, J.; date 10.01.2025 (!) .

How to determine maintenance under DV Act, 2005 when appellate court re-evaluates evidence?

What is what are the grounds to interfere with maintenance orders under Article 227 jurisdiction?

What is the appropriate quantum of maintenance for wife and minor daughter given the salary evidence?


JUDGMENT :

(Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)

1. As per order dated 16.07.2024, the Mediator has submitted it’s report dated 16.10.2024 stating that the Mediation is failed. The said report is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the sides at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and questioned legality and validity of the Judgment and order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Criminal Appeal No.40/2014 thereby judgment and order dated 01.11.2014 passed by the learned JMFC, Shrirampur, in Criminal Misc. Application No.307/2010 has been partly quashed and set aside. Further the Petitioner No.1/Ori. Non-Applicant No.1 directed to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month to the Applicant/Wife and Rs.1500/- per month to the minor daughter-Rechal. The Respondent no. 1 wife is a original Applicant and the Petitioners are original Non-Applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No.307/2010.

4. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that, Petitioner No.1 is the Husband of the Respond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top