Latest news with #ManjushaDeshpande
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Bombay high court overturns family court order on man's plea against matrimonial home dispossession
Mumbai: In a divorce battle spanning two cities, the Bombay High Court on Thursday partially overturned a Mumbai family court order. The court observed the man himself moved out of the matrimonial home in 2022, two decades into the marriage, and thus his plea not to dispossess him could not be granted. "Unless a person is already in possession of the premises, such a prayer seeking an order of restraint would not be maintainable," Justice Manjusha Deshpande of the high court said in her order. The couple married in Delhi. She filed for divorce before the family court in New Delhi, and he did the same in Mumbai, both in 2022. The wife, who continues to reside in the matrimonial home, petitioned the HC to challenge a slew of interim reliefs granted to the estranged husband by the Mumbai family court in a detailed order, including his plea not to dispossess him from the house that he said he owns. The fact of his dispossession is established from his own statements made in the interim application, which is supported by the affidavits of the persons in whose presence the belongings were removed, the HC said. Hence, the family court in Bandra could not have granted him the relief "in view of the unequivocal statement of the (husband) himself that he shifted along with his children in February 2022 itself, and his belongings and furniture were removed on 23 January 2025". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo One child is now a major. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai | Gold Rates Today in Mumbai | Silver Rates Today in Mumbai A single-judge bench of Justice Deshpande said though the husband is "admittedly the owner of the house in view of his own averments, he has already shifted along with his children to his father's residence, therefore, I do not find any favour in the contention... that he is still in possession of the matrimonial home". The wife, through her counsel Prabhjit Jauhar, argued she would suffer emotional and mental distress if he is allowed possession. Claiming she needed therapy, she cited the doctor's reports before the family court suggesting the court refrain from passing an order in his favour. The husband also requested an inventory of his possessions in the house, claiming they were removed "behind his back" and he was restrained from entering and reinstalling the articles. Her claim before the courts was that she merely tried to send furniture for polishing, but he claimed she was dispossessing it and stored it in one of his family's other flats. After hearing senior counsel Atul Damle for the husband, the HC said, "The family court rightly held that such recommendations exceed the scope of duty of a Doctor of giving professional opinion" and added the family court "rightly refused to take into consideration the medical opinion of the psychologist and has passed an order of appointment of Court Commissioner to conduct the inventory of all the furniture, fixtures, and household articles in the matrimonial home". The HC upheld the commissioner's appointment and said the visit should be in the presence of both sides and their lawyers. The husband also contended that he only temporarily moved out for his children's sake and had he really abandoned his matrimonial house, there was no reason for him to continue to pay the expenses of maintenance, property tax, gas connection, etc. The Delhi High Court last December, in an interim order, reduced the monthly maintenance awarded by the Delhi family court from Rs 29 lakh to Rs 2.5 lakh per month. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
Indian Express
01-08-2025
- Indian Express
Restaurant owners move Bombay HC against police raids despite earlier court order allowing ‘herbal hookah'
Twelve restaurant owners from the city serving herbal and tobacco-free hookah have approached the Bombay High Court against visits by police officers without notice and threatening the restaurants to shut down and stop serving herbal hookah. The petitioners claimed that such actions were being taken despite the HC verdict of August 2019 which permitted restaurants to serve herbal hookah and the same was complied with by the owners. A bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a plea by 12 restaurant owners argued through advocates Rajendra Rathod and Dhruv Jain. The petitioners include owners/operators of Ustaadi at Crawford Market, The Nest in Bandra, Rustico in Fort, Faham restaurant in Kala Ghoda among others. The high court granted time to state government lawyer to take instructions to respond to the plea and granted liberty to the petitioners to amend the petition with additional information. The actions were allegedly being taken based on June 6, 2025 circular of the home department to police which stipulated that if illegal hookah parlours are found at any location, the responsible police officers must be held accountable and strict action should be taken against them. 'These acts of illegally and unlawfully shutting down the service of herbal hookah at the petitioners' restaurants and threatening to shut down the petitioners' restaurants completely, are not only causing huge monetary losses to the petitioners but also directly affecting the earning capacity and livelihood of their employees,' the plea stated. The petitioners sought direction from the court to the respondent police authorities not to enter their restaurants for any purpose including search without following due procedure under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioners also sought direction to the authorities to comply with the August 2019 order of the HC enabling them to serve herbal hookah and to stop 'illegal and unlawful raids' and threats to the petitioners' restaurants. The plea also sought no coercive action against petitioners for serving herbal or tobacco-free hookah at their establishments. The petitioners also sought direction to authorities that the June 6 circular would not be applicable to them as they are serving herbal/tobacco-free hookah. The HC is likely to hear the plea next on August 6.
Hindustan Times
06-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
Under-construction flat not a ‘shared household' under Domestic Violence Act, rules HC
MUMBAI: In a significant ruling on the interpretation of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, the Bombay high court has held that an under-construction flat cannot be considered a 'shared household' under the law, and therefore, a man cannot be compelled to pay its balance cost to secure his estranged wife's right of residence. Under-construction flat not a 'shared household' under Domestic Violence Act, rules HC Justice Manjusha Deshpande passed the order on Friday while dismissing a petition filed by a 45-year-old woman from Goregaon. She had sought directions to her estranged husband, a 55-year-old software engineer working in the US, to pay the remaining instalments of a ₹3.52-crore flat in Malad West booked in their joint names. The court noted that since the possession of the flat had not been handed over and the payments were still incomplete, the property could not be considered a 'shared household' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The couple married in May 2013 and initially lived in a rented flat in Thane. In 2019, the man moved to the US for work. According to the woman, during his time abroad, he had an extra-marital affair. Despite strained relations, she said she gave the marriage another chance when he returned to India in February 2020 and promised to settle down with her in Mumbai. As a gesture of commitment, the husband booked the 1,029-sq-ft under-construction apartment in Malad West. However, the woman alleged that after moving into another rented flat in Malad in 2021, the man resumed harassing her, prompting her to file a domestic violence complaint before the Borivali magistrate court. In the course of those proceedings, she sought an order directing him to pay the balance consideration for the Malad flat, claiming it was necessary to protect her right of residence under section 19 of the DV Act. The magistrate court rejected her plea on June 3, 2024. The order was upheld by the Dindoshi sessions court on October 19, 2024. She then moved the high court in appeal. Dismissing her plea, justice Deshpande observed that although the DV Act protects a woman's right to reside in the shared household, the definition requires actual possession or residence. 'The flat is under construction and not in possession of either party. Therefore, it would not qualify as a shared household,' the court ruled. Directing the husband or his employer to pay pending instalments would be 'stretching it too far', the court added, concluding that such a direction was beyond the scope of the DV Act.
India Today
27-06-2025
- India Today
Earning wife still entitled to maintenance from husband, rules Bombay High Court
While holding that "merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of support from her husband at the same standard of living to which she was accustomed in her matrimonial home," the Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal by a husband challenging a Family Court bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande was hearing an appeal filed by a 36-year-old Thane resident. The Family Court had passed an order granting maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to the wife until the disposal of the estranged couple had married on November 28, 2012. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents from May 2015. He claimed that their relationship had soured due to her tantrums and ill-treatment. Despite him buying a new flat to ensure her comfort, as per her wishes, her attitude did not change, and she imposed conditions he found impossible to meet. Subsequently, the husband filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The wife filed an interim application for maintenance on September 29, 2021, which the Family Court adjudicated on August 24, Shashipal Shankar, appearing for the husband, argued that the wife was employed at a school and earned Rs 21,820 per month. She also earned an additional Rs 2,00,000 annually by conducting tuition classes, as reflected in her Income Tax Returns. In addition, she received interest from fixed deposit the wife contended that the husband was employed at a reputed company as a Senior Manager/Marketing Executive with a salary package in lakhs and significant financial resources, including substantial income and savings. "Despite possessing the financial capacity, he is avoiding his obligation to deprive the wife of her legal dues, to which she is entitled under the law," argued Advocate SS Dube, representing the considering the facts and arguments, the bench observed that while the wife is earning, her income is insufficient to maintain herself. She has to travel long distances daily for work and currently lives with her parents, which cannot continue indefinitely. Due to her modest earnings, she is compelled to stay at her brother's house along with her parents, causing inconvenience and hardship for all. "On such an income, she is not in a position to live a decent life," the judge the other hand, the husband's income is significantly higher, and he has no financial responsibilities, the bench added."Even assuming that certain expenses are necessary for his own maintenance and for those he is legally obliged to support, the remaining amount is sufficient to enable him to support his wife in accordance with the Family Court's order," the bench held while declining to interfere with the order of the Family Court at Bandra.- EndsMust Watch
Time of India
26-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC: Huge disparity in incomes, wife entitled to get maintenance
Mumbai: The Bombay high court upheld an order passed by the family court, Bandra, directing a man to pay Rs 15,000 monthly interim maintenance to his estranged wife. "There is a huge disparity in the income of the petitioner and the respondent, which cannot be compared. The respondent wife is certainly entitled to be maintained with the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before their separation," said Justice Manjusha Deshpande in its June 18 order. "Merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of support from her husband…I do not find the maintenance awarded to be unreasonable or extreme," added Justice Deshpande, dismissing the petition. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The husband challenged the family court's August 2023 order, saying the wife is employed as a teacher and her monthly income is approximately Rs 40,000, including interest from fixed deposits. He received Rs 57,000 net salary, and his monthly expenses, including looking after his old parents, come to Rs 54,000. The wife's advocate said she earns Rs 19,000 net salary. Justice Deshpande said the husband's claim is falsified by his salary slip that shows his net salary above Rs 1 lakh. His affidavit disclosed "his parents are not financially dependent on him." Also, the interest the wife earns is "negligible". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo The judge said most of the wife's salary is exhausted in transportation, food, etc., and she is constrained to stay in her brother's house along with her parents. Assuming the husband has certain expenses, "the amount that remains is sufficient enough to enable him to tnn
