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

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NAYANA SUDHIR GOBBUR – Appellant
Versus
SUDHIR SHRIKANT GOBBUR – Respondent
WP 3540/2008



Advocates:
['SHRI MANOJ BHATT', 'SHRI ATUL DAMLE', 'M/S GODBOLE', 'CO']

-: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3540 OF 2008

Nayana Sudhir Gobbur .. Petitioner.

V/s.

Sudhir Shrikant Gobbur .. Respondent.

---

Mr.J.M.Sidhwa i/by Manoj Bhatt for the Petitioner.

Mr. A.G. Damale for the Respondent.

-----

CORAM : R. V. MORE, J.

CORAM : R. V. MORE, J.

CORAM : R. V. MORE, J.

DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008.

DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008.

DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008.

P.C.:

P.C.:

P.C.:

. Heard Mr.Sidhwa, Advocate for the petitioner and

Mr. Atul Damale Advocate for the respondent no.1.

2. This is the wife’s petition to enhance the amount

of interim maintenance. By the impugned order, the Judge

of the Family Court, Mumbai granted to the petitioner an

amount of Rs. 5000/- per month in addition to the school

fees of her daughter towards interim maintainence. The

original proceedings are filed by the petitioner for

divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of

this petition, the application for interim maintainence

came to be filed and as stated above, the petitioner was

granted Rs.5000/- towards maintainence. Admittedly, the

-: 2 :-

respondent husband is earning Rs.49,000/- per month. The

petitoner wife is also admittedly earning an amount of

Rs. 21,000/- per month by way of gross salary. In

addition to the above, admittedly, the respondent husband

transfered to the petitioner’s account Rs. 30,00,000/-.

(Rs.thirty lakhs). There is no dispute that this amount

is utilised by the petitioner for purchasing a flat.

Over and above, the petitioner wife is also getting an

amount of Rs.2,800/- by way of rent from the another

flat. In my considered view, the Judge of the Family

Court considered the income of the respective parties and

thereafter, passed the impugned order. I do not find any

perversity or illegality in the approach adopted by the

learned Judge of the Family Court.

3. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same

is dismissed.

( R.V. MORE, J.)

.....

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 Back to top