1 wp6821.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6821 OF 2015
(Vijay s/o Gulabrao Vaidya ..vs.. Savita w/o Vijay Vaidya)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearances, Court’s orders of directions
and Registrar’s orders
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Shri P.S. Kadam, Counsel for the petitioner,
None for the respondent.
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 11-09-2018
Heard Shri P.S. Kadam, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Shri A.S. Ganu, learned Counsel for the
respondent is absent.
3. This Court, by order dated 18-12-2015, issued
notice for final disposal of the writ petition. The petition
is, therefore, heard finally at the admission stage.
4. The challenge is to the order dated 18-2-2015
rendered by the learned District Judge-1, Wardha in
Regular Civil Appeal 13/2013, by and under which the
application preferred by the respondent-wife for
maintenance pendent lite and litigation expenses under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed and the
petitioner-husband is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per
month to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance
and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
::: Uploaded on – 14/09/2018 15/09/2018 00:47:28 :::
2 wp6821.15
5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for
the petitioner-husband Shri P.S. Kadam, I have perused
the material on record and the order impugned. The
submission of the learned Counsel Shri P.S. Kadam is
that since the wife was granted monthly interim
maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in the proceedings instituted
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, the order impugned is unsustainable. The said
submission is considered only for rejection.
6. The husband is working with Khadi and
Village Industries Commission and the gross salary in
2015 was Rs.24,685/- per month. The learned District
Judge noticed that there is no material on record to hold
that the wife has any source of income. The
maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and
Rs.2,000/- per month to the child granted by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class in the proceedings under
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is duly
noted and considered in the order impugned. Be it
noted, that considering the object and the rationale of the
provision under which the wife is granted interim
maintenance pending litigation, the fact that she was
earlier granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per
month in the proceedings under Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act does not vitiate the order. It
is not that the District Judge was not aware that the wife
was granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per
::: Uploaded on – 14/09/2018 15/09/2018 00:47:28 :::
3 wp6821.15
month in the proceedings under Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act. The District Judge has
noted and considered the grant of maintenance in earlier
proceedings and after due application of mind to the
earning capacity of the husband, has deemed it fit to
direct the husband to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- to the wife. I do not see any infirmity in the
order impugned.
7. The petition is sans merit and is rejected.
JUDGE
adgokar
::: Uploaded on – 14/09/2018 15/09/2018 00:47:28 :::
