Bombay High Court
Raju S/O Kawaduji Borkar vs Smt. Jyoti W/O Raju Borkar And ... on 29 September, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
cwp702.15.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.702 OF 2015
Raju Kawaduji Borkar
aged about 47 yrs., Occp. Service,
r/o C/o Sub-Treasury Office, Karanja,
Tah. Karanja, Distt. Wardha. :: PETITIONER
.. Versus
..
1. Smt. Jyoti w/o Raju Borkar,
aged about 42 yrs., Occp. Housewife.
2. Ku. Tanmayee d/o Raju Borkar,
aged about 10 yrs., Occp. Student,
3. Master Yash s/o Raju Borkar,
aged about 7 yrs., Occp. Student,
Nos. 2 and 3 being minor through
respondent No.1 mother.
All r/o C/o Shri Manohar B. Patre,
New Khalasi Line, Kamptee,
Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri A. S. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deul Pathak, Advocate for the respondents.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 29 SEPT., 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Heard finally by consent.
3. By this petition, the legality and correctness of the
judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamptee
dated 27/01/2014 granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/-
to respondent Nos.1 to 3, respectively and also the judgment and
order of the Ad-hoc District Judge & Sessions Judge, Nagpur in
Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2014, confirming the order of the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class are questioned.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts
below have not given any consideration to the deductions made from
the gross salary of the applicant on monthly basis and have also not
considered appropriately the dependence of his parents on his income.
He submits that the effect of the impugned orders is that they put such
burden upon the applicant, which cannot be sustained by him within
the present structure of his salary.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that amounts
of monthly maintenance granted to the respondents are not exorbitant
in as much as, all the considerations necessary for determining the
quantum of maintenance have been appropriately thought of by the
Courts below while passing the impugned orders and, therefore, there
is no need to make any interference in them.
6. On going through the impugned orders, I am of the view
that the orders cannot be faulted with as there is no illegality,
impropriety or incorrectness. It is further seen that the Courts below
have appropriately considered the monthly income of the applicant
and deductions being made from the salary on monthly basis and
come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.4,000/- for respondent
No.1 and amount of Rs.3,000/- for respondents No. 2 and 3 each
would be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the
case. I see no material available on record which would enable me to
find that the view taken by the Court below is perverse or illegal or
improper. No interference in the impugned orders is called for.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
wwl
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : W.W. Lichade, P.A.
Uploaded on : 30/9/2016
