Gujarat High Court High Court

Nilay vs Neha on 29 March, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Nilay vs Neha on 29 March, 2011
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/2516/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2516 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10714 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 13009 of 2010
 

In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2516 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

NILAY
NIRANJANKUMAR DALAL - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

NEHA
NILAY DALAL D/O CHANDRESH SANMUKHRAI THAKER - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
ZUBIN F BHARDA for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/03/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA)

The
appellant, an Engineer, is the husband of the first respondent. He is
also a father of a son.

The
learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad, passed order more than
one and a half years back under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
to pay maintenance in favour of the wife (Rs.10,000=00 per month) and
his son (Rs.5,000=00 per month). For about one and a half years the
amount was not paid and the total amount came to about Rs.4 lakhs. He
even did not show his willingness to pay even half of the arrears
i.e. about Rs.2 lakhs. Taking into consideration the attitude of the
appellant-husband, who is an Engineer, the learned Judge, Family
Court, refused to grant any further relief, which was also affirmed
by the learned Single Judge.

We
heard learned counsel for the parties. We find no ground to interfere
with the said order. The Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil
Application are dismissed. No cost.

(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
CJ.)

(J.B.Pardiwala,
J.)

/moin

   

Top