WP 522/17 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 522/2017
Purushottam S/o Bhaurao Jivtode,
Aged about 50 years, occupation :-
government servant,
R/o NMC Quarter, Sane Guruji Urdu
Primary School Kothi Road, Mahal, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Sonali W/o Purushottam Jivtode,
Aged about 37 years, Occ:- Service.
2. Sanskruti D/o Purushottam Jivtode,
Aged about 12 years, Occupation: Student,
Being Minor, through natural guardian i.e.
Respondent no.1 mother.
Both R/o C/o Devidas Bapurao Dukare, Bapu
Niwas Plot No.66/A, Ashirwad Nagar, Nagpur. RESPONDE
NTS
Mr. D.M. Khandait, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. R.R. Prajapati, counsel for the respondents.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 19 TH DECEMBER, 2017.
P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule is made
returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and the petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.12.2016 passed below Exhibit 6 (Interim Application No.82/2016) in Petition No.E-47/2016 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:02:23 :::
WP 522/17 2 Judgment
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the respondent no.1 had deserted the petitioner, the respondents were not entitled to any maintenance. He further submitted that the respondent no.1 is working as a Laboratory Technician in a private hospital and is drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He submitted that the respondent no.1 is also getting income from the land standing in the name of her father. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no.1 is staying with her grandfather and as such, her grandfather is looking after her. He further submitted that the net salary received by the petitioner is about Rs.5,900/- per month, though the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.26,544/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that at the time when the petitioner got married to the respondent no.1, it was agreed that the responsibility of respondent no.2 would be entirely on the respondent no.1's parents and as such, the respondent no.2 is not entitled to receive any maintenance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that no interference was warranted in the impugned order dated 05.12.2016. He submitted that the respondents do not have any source of income and as such, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain both the respondents. He further disputed the fact, that the ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:02:23 ::: WP 522/17 3 Judgment respondent no.1 was working as a Laboratory Technician in any private hospital or that the respondent no.1 was getting income from any other sources. He further denied that there was any arrangeement between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 that after their marriage, the respondent no.2's responsibility will be with the respondent no.1's parents.
5. Perused the papers as well as the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner, a divorcee and the respondent no.1, a widow got married in June-2012. Both, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 have children from their earlier marriages; the petitioner has two daughters and the respondent no.1 has one daughter, i.e. the respondent no.2. After the petitioner and the respondent no.1 got married, the respondent no.2 started suffixing the petitioner's name as her father. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Peon in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and is drawing gross salary of Rs.26,544/- per month. It appears that the petitioner has taken various loans, as a result of which, the net salary received by him is Rs.5,900/-. The deduction of Rs.18,000/- and odd consists of G.P.F. advance, society loan and L.I.C. loan and cannot be considered as admissible deductions. Admittedly, no documents have been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the respondent no.1 is working as a Laboratory Technician in a private ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:02:23 ::: WP 522/17 4 Judgment hospital or that she has any source of income. Prima-facie, there is no merit in the submission that there was an arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 that after their marriage, the respondent no.2's responsibility will be with the respondent no.1's parents. The impugned order by which maintenance was awarded to each of the respondents, i.e. Rs.2,500/- per month, cannot be said to be either perverse or unsustainable, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The observations are prima-facie, and as such all contentions of the parties are kept open, to be agitated during trial.
7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.
JUDGE APTE ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:02:23 :::