Bombay High Court
Amrinder Darshan Singh vs Rowena Amrinder Singh on 10 March, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 100321revn116.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2020
AMRINDER DARSHAN SINGH
VERSUS
ROWENA AMRINDER SINGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C. B. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the non-applicant.
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : MARCH 10, 2021.
1. Heard Mr. C.B. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for
the applicant and Mr. Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for the
non-applicant.
2. Mr. Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for the non-
applicant submitted that the applicant has filed an
additional affidavit on record, which is dated 28.12.2020.
Along with the said, he has filed a list of annexures and
under the said list, six documents are filed. He submitted
that document no.1 is an incomplete document.
Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that it appears that due to mistake
incomplete document is placed on record. He, therefore,
submits that he will file on record the complete document,
which is at Annexure-A in the list filed along with
Additional Affidavit, within a period of two weeks from
today.
His statement is accepted.
3. Further submission of Mr. Joshi, learned counsel
for the non-applicant is that the applicant is not depositing
the amount of interim maintenance granted in favour of
the daughter by name Ku. Palak Singh, though
2 100321revn116.20.odt
maintenance granted to her by both the Courts below is
not challenged by the applicant in this proceeding.
Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur has
allowed the application (Exh.5) in part filed on behalf of
the non-applicant/wife, whereby the present applicant/
husband was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of
monthly maintenance for wife/non-applicant herein and
daughter Palak Singh. In addition to that, the husband
was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife
for her medical expenses.
4. The said order was carried in appeal by the
applicant/husband and the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Chandrapur vide judgment dated 29.08.2019
dismissed the appeal.
5. The applicant did not challenge in this proceeding
the maintenance granted in favour of daughter Palak
Singh. Even today, Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel
for the applicant makes a statement that the applicant is
not at all challenging the maintenance granted to
daughter Palak.
6. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the
applicant has strongly objected that the applicant is not
paying the amount of maintenance to the daughter. To
buttress his point, he invited my attention to Annexure-C
filed along with the additional affidavit dated 28.12.2020,
which is a photo copy of the passbook of State Bank of
India and the said account stands in the name of Ku.
Palak Singh. He invited my attention to the entry dated
24.12.2020, which shows that an amount of Rs.1,83,300/-
is in deposit in the said bank account.
7. At the first blush, any one will tempt to accept the
statement made on behalf of the applicant that he is
3 100321revn116.20.odt
paying the amount of maintenance . However, on closure
scrutiny of the photo copy of the passbook and on a close
look, it is appears that it is a facade.
8. Admittedly, Ku. Palak is staying with her mother at
Chandrapur. Photo copy of the bank passbook
(Annexure-C) shows that the account is opened in the
name of Ku. Palak in State Bank of India, Kharghar, Navi
Mumbai branch. Thus, the account is at Navi Mumbai,
the amount is deposited in Mumbai branch, whereas the
daughter is staying at Chandrapur and she has no access
to the said bank account.
9. In that view of the matter, the approach and
attitude on the part of the applicant is required to be
deprecated.
10. Since, the applicant has not challenged the
amount of maintenance and its quantum to Ku. Palak, his
daughter, the applicant herein is directed to deposit the
entire amount of maintenance to her from the date of
application i.e. 30.07.2016 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per
month before this Court within a period of Ten days from
today.
11. Put up this matter on 24.03.2021 for compliance.
12. In the meanwhile, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for
the non-applicant is permitted to file reply, if non-applicant
wish.
JUDGE
Diwale
Digitally signed
by Parag
Parag Diwale
Date:
Diwale 2021.03.10
17:43:33
+0530
