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 :::
