Omar Haroon Shaikh v. Almas Mehmood Whewaria And ORS

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL / CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2015 IN M.J. PETITION NO.92 OF 2014 Omar Haroon Shaikh ...Applicant/Orig.Respdt.

Vs.

Almas Mehmood Whewaria & Ors.

...Respondents/Orig.Ptnrs.

Mr. Ayaz Khan, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Shoaib I. Memon, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 ALONG WITH FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.91 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT MAINTENANCE PETITION NO. E-92 OF 2014 Almas Mehmood Whewaria & Anr.

...Appellants/Orig.Ptnrs.

Vs.

Omar Haroon Shaikh

...Respondent/Orig.Rspdt.

ALONG WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.54 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT CUSTOD PETITION NO. D-66 OF 2012 Omar Haroon Shaikh

...Petitioner/Orig.Respdt.

Vs.

Almas Mehmood Whewaria & Ors.

...Respondents/Orig.Applt

Ms.T.F. Irani i/b. Ayaz Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner in CP No.326 of 2015 & Respondent in FCA No.54 and FCA No.91/2015 Mr. Shoaib Memon, Advocate for the Respondent in 1/3

CP. No. 326 of 2015 & Appellant in FCA No.54 of 2015 and FCA No.91 of CORAM :

NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2016.

P.C. :

1] Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the record. Perused the order passed by this Court on 2nd September, 2015 and 5th October, 2015. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for grant of interim relief. It is submitted that the trial Court was misled by the respondent by producing lengthy evidence. The trial Court ascertained maintenance amount on a higher side. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the petitioner is willing to pay maintenance to the child. The Counsel objected to grant of maintenance to the respondent, mother of the child. One of the contentions is that the mother of the child is earning and resides with her mother in a three bedroom flat. We have considered the submissions. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent had prayed for grant of interim relief, but this Court had rejected the prayer by an order dated 5th October, 2/3

2015. The amount of maintenance has been assessed reasonably. 2] In the fact, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the maintenance amount granted by Court. The revision petition is rejected.

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 3/3