Akaram Motiram Pawar v. Archana Akaram Pawar And ORS

29crirevn115-24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO.115 OF 2024 Archana Akaram Pawar and Anr.

... Applicants.

Versus

Akaram Motiram Pawar and Anr.

... Respondents.

WITH CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2024 Akaram Motiram Pawar and Anr.

... Applicants.

Versus

Archana Akaram Pawar and Anr.

... Respondents.

----- Mr. Abhijit Tulsankar a/w. Mr. Vinod Zende, for the Applicants in Cri.Revn./115/2024 and for Respondent in Cri.Revn./161/2024, through Video Conferencing.

Mr. P.A. Pol, a/w. Mr. Rajesh S. Hatkar i/by Pol Legal Juris for the Applicants in Cri.Revn/161/2024 and for Respondent in Cri.Revn/115/2024. ----- Coram :

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Date :

April 15, 2024.

P. C. :

1.

Heard.

2.

The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 2nd February, 2021 passed by the Appellate Court enhancing the amount only by ₹7,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the Revision-Applicants submits that the Appellate Court has taken into consideration the EMIs to be paid towards car loan which was taken deliberately after the appeal has been filed. He submits that the sum of ₹25,000/- was sa_mandawgad 1 of

29crirevn115-24 considered by the Appellate Court which was the EMI towards the loan obtained for purchase of the car. He submits that apart from the Applicants, there are two children who are not working and the sum of ₹10,000/- granted is meager amount.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondenthusband submits that he has also filed revision application challenging the enhanced amount and seeks accommodation.

4.

Prima facie, it appears that after the appeal was filed, the application was made for obtaining car loan. The said fact is also admitted by the Respondent-husband and it is also admitted that the car loan has been fully repaid in the month of August, 2022. 5.

Considering that in the year 2019, the monthly net salary of the Respondent No.1-husband was ₹72,102/-, the sum of ₹10,000/- granted for the maintenance of the Applicant and the two children is clearly insufficient. As accommodation is sought by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-husband to place on record certain material showing that the children are now working, stand over to 6th May, 2024.

6.

In the meantime, the Respondent No.1-husband is directed to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000/- to the Petitioner-wife. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] 2 of Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/04/2024 11:57:40