Narayan Parasharam Gadad (Jaat) vs State Of Maharashtra Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4739 Bom

      IRESH SIDDHARAM   Digitally signed by IRESH
                        SIDDHARAM MASHAL
      MASHAL            Date: 2022.05.05 09:48:09 +0530




                                                                                24.5066.22 wp.doc

ISM
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5066 OF 2022

          NARAYAN PARASHARAM GADAD (JAAT)                                       ....PETITIONER

                  V/s.

          STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS                                   .....RESPONDENTS

          Ms. Minal Chandnani i/b Jaiwant S. Chandnani Associates Advocate
          for the Petitioner
          Mr. P. P. Pujari AGP for Respondent no. 1


                                             CORAM :      NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                             DATE:        MAY 4, 2022.

          P.C.:

          1)      Heard. Petitioner suffered Decree in a Suit for partition which is

subject matter of challenge in R.C.A. No. 18/2015 in which order

impugned below Exh. 83 directing Petitioner-Judgment Debtor to pay

maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month came to be passed. As such,

this Petition.

Vide Decree under challenge, Petitioner-Defendant was directed

to hand over possession of Suit property to Respondent-Decree

24.5066.22 wp.doc

Holder.

2) Fact remains that Petitioner-Defendant is enjoying Suit property

since 2009 i.e. the date of filing of the Suit. Though it is claimed that

Petitioner has paid maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month, it is

difficult to infer that Respondent-Plaintiff, a widow daughter-in-law

who happens to be Decree holder could survive on the said amount

of Rs. 2000/- per month when the Petitioner is enjoying profits from

the Suit property so also other properties. On one hand it is claimed

that because of old age and adverse health, Suit property is not

cultivated, however on the other hand, Petitioner is neither willing to

part with Suit property nor to pay maintenance.

3) That being so, no case for interference is made out. Petition

stands dismissed.

4) Hearing of the Appeal is expedited since the Suit proceedings

were initiated in 2009.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]