Mohd. Iliyas S/O. Mohd. Ismile And ... vs Rakshanda Farzeen W/O. Mohd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6420 Bom

                                 1            908-Cri.Rev.Appln.177-22.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          908 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2022

          MOHD. ILIYAS S/O. MOHD. ISMILE AND OTHERS
                            VERSUS
       RAKSHANDA FARZEEN W/O. MOHD. ILIYAS AND OTHERS

                                    ...
      Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Muneshwar G. K., Mr. Yadav Lal
                                Bahadur.
              Advocate for Respondents : Mr. M. P. Kale.
                                    ...

                               CORAM :     S. G. MEHARE, J.
                               DATE :      06.07.2023

     PER COURT :-


     1.      Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. Today, the

     respondents have been appeared through their counsel.

     However, he resisted the stay application.


     2.      Learned counsel for the applicants tried to convince the

     Court that the proceeding was delayed due to continuous

     absence of the respondent/wife. Hence, he was unnecessary

     burden to pay the enhanced maintenance from the year 2012.

     Besides, he has spent the huge amount over the medication of

     his mother, who is now no more. As usual, the respondent/

     husband is saying that he has other responsibilities.




::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2023                  ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2023 21:28:09 :::
                                  2            908-Cri.Rev.Appln.177-22.odt



     3.      Learned counsel for the respondents orally submitted

     that the applicant is an Advocate by profession.          Till date,

     around Rs.11,00,000/- arrears is due. However, he is most

     negligent in maintaining his wife and children. Though he is

     lawyer has no respect for the law. He has avoided to pay the

     maintenance. Now, the warrant has been issued. Hence, he is

     pressing for stay.


     4.      Perused the impugned judgment and order. It is a

     matrimonial case. The court enhanced the maintenance of

     Rs.3,000/- to each of the respondents and Rs.1,000/- towards

     the rent. Considering the sky rocketing prices of the day and

     the needs of a human being, with the number of dependents,

     Rs.3,000/- per month each appears not so high and

     unreasonable maintenance.


     5.      The learned counsel for the applicants is insisting for

     stay. The Court asked him to deposit 75% of the arrears

     amount within three months by three equal installments and

     continue to pay Rs.8,000/- per month till conclusion of the

     application. On this, learned counsel for the applicant states

     that he wants to take instructions from the applicants. This




::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2023                 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2023 21:28:09 :::
                                      3             908-Cri.Rev.Appln.177-22.odt

     seems bargaining. It is presumed that he is prepared well as he

     is seeking the interim protection. That shows his conduct.


     6.      Considering the facts of the case, standard of living of

     the respective parties and ability of the applicant/husband, the

     following order is passed :

                                     ORDER

(i) The execution, implementation of the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 in PWDVA Appeal No.52 of 2018 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 2, Parbhani is stayed till further orders, till filing the reply by the respondents on the conditions that the applicants shall deposit 75% of the arrears of the maintenance till today as per the impugned order within three months by three equal installments and continue to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as the maintenance and the house rent until further orders.

(ii) Stand over to 10.08.2023.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

...

vmk/-