WP2154.19 1 Judgment

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

WRIT PETITION NO.2154/2019

1. Sau. Madhavi w/o Dineshkumar Bondre,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Household.

2. Parth s/o Dineshkumar Bondre,
Aged about 5 years, Occ. Student,
Being minor through petitioner no.1,
Both R/o. C/o. Vishnu Panchbude,
Rajani Nagar, Khat Road, Khokrla,
Tah. and District Bhandara. PETITIONERS
…..VERSUS…..

Dineshkumar Dilip Bondre,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ramnagar, Rajendra Ward,
Kisan Chauk, Pandhrabodi Road,
Shukrawari, Bhandara,
Tah. and District – Bhandara. RESPONDENT

Mrs. Deepa I. Charlewar, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S. Borkar, Advocate for respondent.

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2019.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the

order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit 13 on 02.03.2019. By that

order the application preferred by the petitioner no.1 in proceedings for

::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2019 21/11/2019 21:36:15 :::
WP2154.19 2 Judgment

grant of divorce with a prayer for grant of maintenance pendente lite has

been partly allowed. The respondent has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/-

per month as interim maintenance. The prayer with regard to grant of

interim maintenance to the son has been refused.

3. I have heard learned counsel and I have perused the

documents on record. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner

she is entitled for higher amount of maintenance. However no interim

maintenance has been granted for the son only on the ground that he was

not a party to the proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

the respondent that the proceedings are at the stage of recording

evidence. The respondent is being cross-examined in the proceedings.

He therefore submits that the proceedings before the trial Court could be

directed to be adjudicated and the order as passed can be continued in

the interest of justice.

4. The impugned order directs payment of interim maintenance.

Since the proceedings are at the stage of recording evidence it would be

expedient to direct the trial Court to decide the proceedings on merits

after considering the evidence on record. However, at the same time

interim maintenance for the son could not have been denied only on the

ground that he was not party to the proceedings. Since the proceedings

::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2019 21/11/2019 21:36:15 :::
WP2154.19 3 Judgment

were for grant of divorce he was not expected to be arrayed as the party.

The petitioner no.2 is the son of the respondent. He is also required to be

maintained by the respondent. He is thus entitled to be granted

maintenance. Hence, the following order is passed.:–

Without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the respondent

shall continue to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per

month to the petitioner no.1 as directed by the impugned order. The

respondent shall also pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the

petitioner no.2 – minor son from the date of the order passed by the trial

Court. It is clarified that these directions are without prejudice to the

rights of the parties. All contentions on merits are kept open. The

proceedings in Hindu Marriage Petition No.120 of 2018 are expedited.

The Writ Petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is disposed

of in aforesaid terms. No costs.

(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Sarkate.

::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2019 21/11/2019 21:36:15 :::