Sharad Ramchandra Chauhan v. Sau. Pranalini W/O Sharad Chauhan And Another

1 revn164.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Cri. Revision No. 164 of 2014 Sharad v. Pranalini and anr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R. R. Gour, Advocate for applicant Shri H. R. Gadhia, Advocate for respondents CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 7, 2016.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

Legality and correctness of the order dated 18th September 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Nagpur enhancing the monthly maintenance amount already granted to the respondents, has been questioned in this revision.

I have carefully gone thrugh the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, I do not see any illegality or perversity having been committed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. It has been rightly observed that certain deductions from the salary of the applicant were voluntary and at his instance and the same were not statutory deductions. The approach of the Family Court is not against any provisions of law or rather, I would say, it is entirely consistent with the settled principles of law. In the circumstances, the revision application deserves to be rejected.

2 revn164.14 Revision Application stands dismissed. No costs. JUDGE joshi

3 revn164.14 Certificate I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order. Uploaded by :

H S Joshi, PS to Hon'ble Judge Uploaded on :

7.10.2016