Bombay High Court
Vinod @ Vinayak Bapurao Wankhade vs Sau. Sonali Vinayak Wankhade And 2 ... on 25 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 judg wp 7148.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.7148 of 2014.
Vinod @ Vinayak Bapurao Wankhade,
aged about 30 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o.-C/o.-Sudhakar Harne Amarnagar, VMV,
Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] Sau.Sonali Vinayak Wankhade,
aged about 27 years, Occ.-Nil,
2] Ome Vinayak Wankhade,
aged about 6 years, Occ.-Nil,
3] Harsh Vinayak Wankhade,
aged about 2.5 years, Occ.-Nil,
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 through their
natural guardian mother respondent no.1.
Nos. 1 to 3 residents of C/o.-Kisanrao Gawande,
Ravinagar, Amravati,
Tq. and District Amravati. .... Respondents.
Ms Ratna Singh, Adv for petitioner.
Shri R.D. Wakode, Adv for resp.nos.1 to 3.
Coram : S.B. Shukre, J.
th
Dated : 25
April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
2 judg wp 7148.14.odt
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
2] By this petition, an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, on 10-11-2014 granting interim maintenance of
Rs. 5000/- per month to all the respondents, passed by the 2nd Joint
Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati in H.M.P. No.28 of 2014 has
been challenged.
3] It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is illegal and perverse as it does not adequately
consider the fact that it is the respondent no.1 herself who had
deserted the petitioner without any just and sufficient cause and
therefore the respondent no.1 and the children are not entitled to
receive even interim maintenance. She further submits that the
respondent no.1 is running Kirana shop and is able to maintain
herself and respondent nos.2 and 3 out of income earned from the
Kirana/Grocery shop. She further submits that the petitioner's income
is not more than Rs. 150/- to Rs.200/- per day and therefore, the
petitioner is not able to bear the burden of paying interim
maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondents. She also
submits that the petitioner has to look after his parents and in addition,
he is bearing medical expenses on account of his suffering from
3 judg wp 7148.14.odt
abdominal ailment.
4] The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that all these
submissions have been appropriately dealt with in the impugned
order and therefore there is no illegality nor any perversity in the
impugned order.
5]
Upon going through the impugned order, I find that there is
substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents
and no merit in this petition.
6] About the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is
that the respondent no.1 has deserted the petitioner without there
being any sufficient and reasonable cause, I must say, the same would
have to be considered only on merits of the case. At this stage, what
is necessary to be looked into is as to whether or not the petitioner
though possessed of sufficient means to maintain his wife and
children has neglected to so. The petitioner, as seen from the
impugned order as well as the record of this petition, is a person who
is capable of earning income every day. The petitioner himself has
produced on record a certificate from his employer, Kamal
Electronics, Amravati. The certificate shows that the petitioner is
working in the said shop on temporary basis and earning such sums
4 judg wp 7148.14.odt
as Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per day subject to availability of work. This
would be sufficient for me to accept the submission of the learned
Counsel for the respondents at this stage that the petitioner is not
suffering from such an ailment as to prevent him from doing work at
any other place and earning income every day and that if the petitioner
is incurring some medical expenditure, the petitioner ought to have
produced the copy on record before the trial Court but the petitioner
has not done so. The petitioner has also not submitted any evidence to
substantiate his claim that he is required to incur some sort of
expenses for his parents. The petitioner has also not produced on
record any evidence to show that the respondent no.1 who is earning
some income from carrying on the grocery business. Thus, there is a
prima-facie case showing ability of petitioner to earn and his neglect
to maintain on one hand and inability of respondents to maintain
themselves, on the other.
7] In the circumstances, I do not find that any case is made out by
the petitioner for making any interference in the impugned order.
There is no substance in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
The petition stands dismissed.
5 judg wp 7148.14.odt
8] Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
