Vinod Sadashiv Salunkhe v. Neeta Vinod Salunkhe And ANR

920-wp-4949-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4949 OF 2022 Vinod Sadashiv Salunkhe

...Petitioner

Versus

Neeta Vinod Salunkhe & Anr.

...Respondents

_______________________________________________________________ Mr. Dinesh C. Patankar, for the Petitioner.

Ms. S.G.Talhar, APP for the Respondent - State. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 14 FEBRUARY 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Patankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2.

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the Order dated 25th November 2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.277 of 2017 as well as to the Order dated 21st July 2022 passed by the learned Extra Joint District and Sessions Judge, Karad in Criminal Revision No.2 of 2021. 3.

By the impugned Order dated 25th November 2020, maintenance of Rs.4,000/- is granted to the Respondent No.1 - Wife and Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent No.2 - Daughter. By the impugned Order dated 21st July 2022 the said Order dated 25th November 2020 is confirmed. 4.

The impugned Orders have been passed on 25th November 2020 and 21st July 2022. The present Writ Petition is filed on 6th August 2022 and it has been moved for the first time before this Court on 12th Vaibhav Page No. 1

920-wp-4949-2022.doc February 2025.

5.

Both the Courts on the basis of material on record, have concurrently held that the Respondent No.1 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and Respondent No.2 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month.

6.

It is the only contention of Mr. Patankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the material on record do not show that the Petitioner is earning more than Rs.8,000/-. However, both the Courts have taken into consideration that the Petitioner is having a bungalow at Patan and certain other material on record is also taken into consideration.

7.

Thus, no case is made out for interference in the impugned Orders under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Vaibhav Page No. 2