Shri. Tushar S/O Vinayakrao … vs Smt. Renu W/O Tushar Bawankar on 28 July, 2017

1 280717 Judg. wp 7048.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

Writ Petition No.7048 of 2016

Tushar Vinayakrao Bawankar,
Aged 34 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o.-Plot No.141, Vidya Nagar, Wathoda Layout,
Nagpur. …. Petitioner.
(Original Petitioner)

-Versus-

Smt. Renu w/o Tushar Bawankar,
Aged 30 years, Occ.-Pvt. Work,
C/o.-Chitra Vinod Salphule,
Plot No.166, Balaji Nagar, Manewada Road,
Nagpur-440027. …. Respondent.
(Original Respondent)
————————————————————————————-

Mr. Naresh Kukuwas, Counsel holding for
Mr. N.G. Jetha, Counsel for petitioner.

Mr. Masood Shareef, Counsel for respondent.

————————————————————————————-
Coram :

KUM. INDIRA JAIN, . J
th
Dated : 28 July, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2017 08/08/2017 01:58:07 :::

2 280717 Judg. wp 7048.16.odt

2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated

20-08-2016 passed below Exhibit-12 in Petition No.A-264 of

2016 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur,

thereby granting maintenance pendente lite at the rate of

Rs.17,500/- per month including the maintenance to minor child.

3] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in brief

as under :-

Petitioner is husband of respondent. Petition under

Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short,

‘the Act’) for dissolution of marriage was filed by petitioner

before the Family Court. Respondent appeared and filed her

written statement. During pendency of petition she filed an

application (Exhibit-12) under Section 24 of the said Act for

grant of maintenance pendente lite. After hearing the parties,

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur came to the

conclusion that considering the status of petitioner and

respondent even if amount of Rs.17,500/- per month is granted

to respondents that may not be sufficient for both of them to live

as per the standard of petitioner and partly allowed the

application with direction to petitioner to pay maintenance

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2017 08/08/2017 01:58:07 :::
3 280717 Judg. wp 7048.16.odt

pendente lite at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to wife and

Rs.7,500/- p.m. to the child. In addition, litigation expenses to

the tune of Rs.10,000/- were also granted to respondent. Being

aggrieved petitioner has challenged the order of maintenance

pendente lite in this petition.

4] Heard learned Counsel for respondent. Perused

impugned order. It is not in dispute that petitioner is working in

a Pharmaceutical Company. Respondent has produced on

record a copy of an agreement of lease showing that she is

required to stay on rent in a separate house for education of

minor child. She has also produced receipt to indicate that

Rs.1600/- per month have been spent for the conveyance of

child studying in nursery of Bawan’s Bhartiya Vidya Mandir,

Nagpur.

5] The learned Judge of Family Court has considered salary

certificate of petitioner, immovable properties owned by him and

taking note of standard of living of petitioner came to conclusion

that even an amount of Rs.17,500/- per month would not be

sufficient to meet the requirements of respondent and her minor

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2017 08/08/2017 01:58:07 :::
4 280717 Judg. wp 7048.16.odt

child. This Court does not find any fault with the reasonings

recorded by Family Court while granting maintenance pendente

lite. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that impugned

order suffers from any perversity or illegality. As such no case

for interference is made out. Hence, the following order :-

O r d e r

(i) Writ Petition No.7048 of 2016 stands dismissed.

(ii) Rule is discharged. No costs.

JUDGE

Deshmukh

::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2017 08/08/2017 01:58:07 :::

Leave a Comment

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