SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudhir S/O Govind Warhade vs Sau. Radha W/O Sudhir Warhade on 17 September, 2019

1 wp7432of18.odt

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

WRIT PETITION 7432 OF 2018

Sudhir s/o. Govind Warhade,
aged major 50 yrs, Occ. Service,
r/o. c/o. Run R. Umalkar, Ramkunj,
Mahavir Nagar, Buldana,
Tq. Dist. Buldana ……. PETITIONER

…V E R S U S…

Sau. Radha w/o. Sudhir Warhade,
aged major 41 yrs, occ. Housewife,
r/o.Ratnaprabha, Sai Nagar,
Ajispur Road, Buldana,
Tq. Dist. Buldana ……. RESPONDENT
——————————————————————————————-
Shri V.K. Paliwal, counsel for petitioner.
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, counsel for respondent.
——————————————————————————————-
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE: 17th SEPTEMBER, 2019.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard.

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2019 19/09/2019 21:48:13 :::
2 wp7432of18.odt

3 In proceedings under Sectionsection 27 of the Special

SectionMarriage Act, 1954 (Act) initiated by the petitioner – husband for

divorce, the trial Court has granted maintenance pendent lite of

Rs. 8,000/- to the respondent – wife.

4 It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a teacher and

at the relevant time was earning monthly salary of Rs. 43,000/-.

5 The respondent – wife has to maintain herself and two

children from the wedlock who are aged 16 and 9 years.

6 The learned trial Court was pleased to grant

maintenance pendent lite under Sectionsection 36 of the Act on the

premise that the petitioner did not substantiate the contention that

the wife is receiving income of Rs. 40,000/- from one general

store. Shri V.K. Paliwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that there is documentary evidence on record to

show that the wife has let out a residential house and is receiving

Rs. 3,000/- as licence fees. The submission is seriously disputed.

Be that as it may, even if it is assumed arguendo, that the

respondent wife is earning Rs. 3,000/- from some property, I do

not find that the order impugned is in any manner infirm.

::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2019 19/09/2019 21:48:13 :::

3 wp7432of18.odt

7 The scope of Sectionsection 36 of the Act is limited. The

Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial. Suffice it, if the

Court is prima facie satisfied that the wife is not in a position to

maintain herself or the children. Considering the material on

record, the finding of the trial Court that the wife is not in a

position to maintain herself, since she concededly is not employed,

is unexceptionable. If at all, the maintenance granted is most

conservative considering that the monthly income of the petitioner

is Rs. 43,000/- and all that is granted to the respondent who has

two children to support is Rs. 8,000/- per month.

I do not see any reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

The petition is dismissed.

JUDGE

RSB

::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2019 19/09/2019 21:48:13 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation