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 :::