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

M. S. JAWALKAR, M. W. CHANDWANI
Sahil Sanjay Rathod – Appellant
Versus
Swati Sahil Rathod – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri R.R. Deo, Advocate
For the Respondent: In person

JUDGMENT

M.S. Jawalkar, J.—Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent in person.

2. By all these matters, the Appellant-Husband is challenging the common judgment and order dated 30/08/2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal in Petition No. A-126/2022 (for restitution of conjugal rights), Petition No. C-4/2022 (for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956) and Petition No. E-74/2022 (for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) filed by the Respondent-Wife by which all the Petitions were allowed, the Respondent-Wife was directed to resume cohabitation with the Appellant - Husband and the Appellant-Husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the wife in each Petition for maintenance.

3. Since Family Court Appeal No. 57/2024 is treated as main matter, the facts and contentions stated in the said Appeal are set out for adjudication of the issues involved in all the matters and they are being decided by this common judgment.

4. The facts giving rise for filing of the present matters are as under:-

5. The Appellant is the husband of the

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