1611WP582.17-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 582 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Naresh s/o Sundarlal Kotturwar, Aged about
37 years, Occupation: Service, Resident of
Behind Vetinary College, Near Kanchanmala
Marathi School, Surendragarh, Seminary
Hills, Nagpur-440006.
[Original Respondent]
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Bharti w/o Naresh Kotturwar, Aged about
34 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident
of D/o Nanayya Dassar, Tent Line, Near
Ambika Bakery, Mohan Nagar, Nagpur
440001.
2. Disha d/o Naresh Kotturwar, Aged about 5
years, Through her Natural Guardian
Mother Smt. Bharti w/o Naresh Kotturwar,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation:
Housewife, Resident of D/o Nanayya Dassar,
Tent Line, Near Ambika Bakery, Mohan
Nagar, Nagpur 440001.
[Original Petitioners]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Sachin Katarpawar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.M.S.Shahu, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:57:07 :::
1611WP582.17-Judgment 2/4
CORAM : SMT.REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATED : 16.11.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner-husband has impugned the order dated 16/02/2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur below Exhibit-6, by which the respondents' application for interim maintenance was partly allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits, that the petitioner is working as a driver in a private firm and is receiving a salary of about Rs.7,600/- per month. He submits, that the interim maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is exorbitant and that if Rs.5,000/- per month is paid to the respondents as directed, the petitioner-husband is left with a meager amount i.e. only Rs.2,600/-. He further submits, that the petitioner's sister and mother are dependent on him. He therefore prays, that the interim maintenance granted by the Trial Court be reduced.
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:57:08 :::
1611WP582.17-Judgment 3/4
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife opposes the petition. He submits, that no interference is warranted in the impugned order dated 16/02/2017. He submits that, that the petitioner-husband is under a legal and moral obligations to maintain the respondents, inasmuch as, the respondent No.1 has no source of income. He submits, that infact, the petitioner-husband is earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month.
5. Perused the papers. Admittedly, the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife got married on 13/05/2011, at Nagpur. From the said wedlock, respondent No.2-Disha was born on 23/03/2012. It appears, that the parties are living separately for the last two years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-husband is working as a driver in a private firm. The only bone of contention is, the salary received by the petitioner-husband as a driver from the said private firm. According to the petitioner, he is receiving a sum of Rs.7,600/-, whereas according to the respondents, the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Although, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, that he has obtained LIC policies for himself and his daughter, when asked to produce the LIC policies, the petitioner- husband has only produced the policies taken in his name and not in the name of his daughter i.e. respondent No.2. The learned Principal ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:57:08 ::: 1611WP582.17-Judgment 4/4 Judge, Nagpur has rightly come to the conclusion, that the petitioner must be atleast drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month as a driver. Admittedly, none of the parties had produced the salary certificate. In any event, the petitioner-husband is working with a private firm as a driver and must be atleast drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and hence, the interim maintenance awarded cannot be faulted. It is informed, that the petitioner's father was a Government Servant and as such the petitioner's mother is receiving pension. The order passed by the learned Principal Judge is just and reasonable. No interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction in the impugned order dated 16/02/2017. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. The petitioner-husband to comply with the impugned order dated 16/02/2017. The trial pending before the Family Court is expedited.
Rule stands discharged.
7. All the parties to act upon the authenticate copy of this order.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:57:08 :::