Shri Shailesh S/O Chandraprakash … vs The Honble Judge, Family Court No. … on 1 August, 2017

WP 5947.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.5947 OF 2016

Shri Shailesh s/o Chandraprakash
Khanorkar, Aged 34 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Jogithanapeth, Near Jaiswal
Wine Shop, Tahsil-Umred,
District-Nagpur. .. PETITIONER

.. VERSUS ..

1] The Hon’ble Principal Judge,
Family Court No.1, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. .. Deleted

2] Mrs. Himani w/o Shailesh Khanorkar,
Age 27 years, Occupation-Nil,
C/o. Ashok Shende, Tandapeth New
Locality, Near Naik Talao, P.S.
Panchpaoli, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS

……….
Shri M.S. Vakil, Advocate for Petitioner,
Shri P.A. Markandeywar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
……….

CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : AUGUST 01, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for parties.

::: Uploaded on – 04/08/2017 06/08/2017 00:29:34 :::
WP 5947.16.odt 2

2] The challenge in petition is to the order dated

23.3.2016 passed by Family Court, Nagpur in Maintenance

Application No.49/2015 filed in Petition No. A-64/2015 by

respondent-wife for interim maintenance.

3] By the said order, the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Nagpur granted Rs.4,500/- per month to

respondent and Rs.2,000/- per month to minor daughter

with effect from 1.1.2015 in addition to interim maintenance

at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent and

Rs.1,000/- per month to child granted in domestic violence

case.

4] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated

in brief as under :

(i) Petitioner and respondent no.2 were

married on 28.6.2012. They were blessed with a girl child

on 28.4.2013. In view of matrimonial bickerings, they

READ  Aasifbhai Daudbhai Manjothi vs State Of Gujarat & on 28 July, 2017

started residing separately.

(ii) Respondent no.2 filed petition under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of

conjugal rights. During pendency of petition, she filed an

::: Uploaded on – 04/08/2017 06/08/2017 00:29:34 :::
WP 5947.16.odt 3
application for maintenance pendente lite. Upon hearing

the parties, learned Judge passed the impugned order.

Being aggrieved, petitioner-husband has filed the present

petition.

5] The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

respondent no.2 had suppressed the material fact before the

Family Court that interim maintenance was granted to her

and child in domestic violence case. From the perusal of

order, it is apparent that in paragraph 3 (vi), Family Court

has referred to undisputed facts and mentioned that

petitioner therein was awarded interim maintenance at

Rs.2,500/- per month for herself and Rs.1,000/- for daughter.

In view of the same, contention raised by petitioner appears

to be against the record and does not sustain.

6] The next submission on behalf of petitioner is that

salary slip produced by wife was, in fact, containing three

months salary and Family Court has passed the impugned

order by placing reliance on such a salary slip. The

submission is that dependency on petitioner of his old aged

mother and his own expenses were not at all considered by

the court below while awarding interim maintenance.

::: Uploaded on – 04/08/2017 06/08/2017 00:29:34 :::
WP 5947.16.odt 4
7] With the assistance of learned counsel for parties,

this court has gone through the impugned order, application

for interim maintenance and reply filed by husband to

READ  Babu Vs. State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010

interim maintenance application.

8] It is pertinent to note that no where in reply,

husband had stated that salary slip was containing three

months salary. He raised defence that he gets meager

earning and it is not possible for him to pay interim

maintenance. Family Court has taken note of the pleadings

and properly considered the material on record. In the

above premise, no fault can be found with the impugned

order. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition No.5947 of 2016 stands dismissed.

(ii) Rule is discharged.

(iii) No costs.

(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA

::: Uploaded on – 04/08/2017 06/08/2017 00:29:34 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *