Bombay High Court
Rohan Rajiv Kadam And Ors vs Sandhya Vijay Kadam And Ors on 24 April, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/5 25-WP-5526-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5526 OF 2023
Rohan Rajiv Kadam & Ors. .... Petitioners
versus
Sandhya Vijay Kadam & Ors. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Bhushan Raut, Advocate for Petitioner.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 24th APRIL 2023
P.C. :
1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out to add
prayer for ad-interim relief. The amendment shall be carried out
forthwith.
2. Heard Mr.Bhushan Raut, learned counsel for the
Petitioners.
3. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated
22/02/2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Judge, Small Causes
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2023 22:22:49 :::
2/5 25-WP-5526-23.odt
Court & CSJD, Pune, below Ex.1, in Regular Darkhast
No.3/2017. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has
directed that the decree holder i.e. the Respondent No.1 can
seek enforcement of interim maintenance order from December
2004 i.e. amount of Rs.14,80,000/- for 148 months only. The
Petitioners were the original contesting Defendants and their
legal representatives. The suit was filed by the Respondent No.1
bearing Special Civil Suit No.1873 of 1998 before the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Pune, for partition of the joint property
and for declaration of a share. She has also prayed for mesne
profit. During pendency of the suit she was granted maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- per month. The suit was finally decreed vide
order dated 28/04/2017.
4. The Respondent No.1 filed an application vide Regular
Darkhast No.3/2017 for recovery of the maintenance amount in
which the impugned order was passed.
5. Learned counsel invited my attention to the
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2023 22:22:49 :::
3/5 25-WP-5526-23.odt
compromise pursis filed during pendency of the suit on
30/04/2001. In that pursis it was clearly mentioned that the
Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 herein has received Rs.19 lakhs and it
was in satisfaction of not only the maintenance but in
satisfaction of her entire claim. There was nothing further
remaining and that the parties were withdrawing the suit and
other allegations made against each other.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that after
this compromise, within a short period the Respondent No.1
denied bonafide execution of the said pursis. However, the Trial
Judge vide order dated 13/03/2003 passed below Ex.97 had
accepted that the pursis was given and that the money was
received by the Plaintiff and therefore the Plaintiff's application
for grant of further payment and the maintenance was rejected.
According to learned counsel, therefore, it was not open for the
Plaintiff to have claimed any amount other than what was
received by her earlier in satisfaction of her claims. The learned
Judge erred in observing while passing impugned order that no
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2023 22:22:49 :::
4/5 25-WP-5526-23.odt
evidence was put forth by the judgment debtors to show that
they have paid the amount as per the order of the Court.
Learned Trial Judge observed that all the objections raised by
the judgment debtors pertaining to the alleged compromise and
payment of amount has been already adjudicated by the Court.
Learned counsel submitted that the operative part of the decree
does not make any reference to the interim maintenance.
7. Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear
the Respondent No.1 in particular. Learned counsel for Petitioner
has made out a case for grant of ad-interm relief.
8. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on
24/08/2023.
(ii) Stand over to 24/08/2023.
5/5 25-WP-5526-23.odt
(iii) Till then, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms
of prayer clause (c).
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
