Jyoti Pravin Edake vs Pravin Gopichand Edake
2016 Latest Caselaw 1805 Bom

                                            {1}
                                                                     wp 12007.15.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                            
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO.12007 OF 2015




                                                    
     Jyoti w/o Pravin Edake,
     age: 27 years, occu: service,
     R/o at present C/o Ashok
     Muktaji Borude, Pandharipul




                                                   
     (Borude Vasti), Nagar Aurangabad Road,
     Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar                                        Petitioner


              Versus




                                        
     Pravin s/o Gopichand Edake
     age: 33 years, occu: service,
                             
     R/o Sonai, Tq. Newasa,
     Dist. Ahmednagar                                              Respondents

Mr.N.C.Garud advocate for the petitioner

Mr. C.K.Shinde advocate for respondent _______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J

(Date : 25th APRIL, 2016.) ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision, at admission stage.

3 An application tendered by the petitioner claiming interim

maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- p.m. each for herself and for two

daughters under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act together

with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- has been turned down by

the Trial Court by order dated 15.4.2015. The reason for rejection

{2} wp 12007.15.odt

of the application tendered by the petitioner is that she is serving

as a teacher in the school and is earning salary of Rs.25,000/-.

Respondent is also a teacher in a school and earns Rs.30,000/-

p.m. as salary.

4 Counsel appearing for the petitioner informs that, there are

two minor daughters residing with the applicant and she has to

bear the expenses for their maintenance also. Even if the wife is

earning for herself, that itself cannot be a ground for rejection of

application for interim maintenance under section 24 for the two

daughters. The factum of respondent being employed and earning

Rs.30,000/- is not denied, nor the factum of employment of the

petitioner and earning income by her to the tune of Rs.25,000/- is

denied.

5 Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that, it

would be impermissible for the Court to grant interim

maintenance under section 24 for the children and proper remedy

is to claim maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure

Code and under the provisions of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance

Act. Reliance is placed on the Judgment in case of Akella Rama

Murthy S/o A. Thimmaya Shastry V/s Akella Sitalaxmi

w/o A. Rama Murthy reported in AIR 2005 ANDHRA PRADESH

{3} wp 12007.15.odt

497 delivered by the single Judge. Similarly reliance is also placed

on the Judgment delivered by the single Judge of Patna High

Court in the matter of Bankim Chandra Roy v/s Smt. Anjali

Roy reported in AIR 1972 Pat 80.

6 Counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the

Judgment in the matter of Amit Rasiklal Shah v/s Sonal Amit

Shah reported in 2011 (1) Mh. L.J. 533 delivered by learned

single Judge of this Court and Judgment delivered by the single

Judge of Gujrat High Court in the matter of Remani Menon &

another versus K.G. Omnakuttan and another reported in

AIR 2004 GUJRAT 23.

Placing reliance on the aforesaid two Judgments, it has been

pointed out that this Court as well as the Gujrat High Court have

directed the payment of maintenance to the children

commensurate with the status of the family.

7 It must be borne in mind that, since the petitioner is

maintaining her two minor children, she has to divert major part

of income for maintenance of children and as such, she requires

financial assistance for prosecuting the litigation initiated against

her.

{4} wp 12007.15.odt

8 Considering the matter from the aforesaid perspective, the

argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent does not appear to be sound.

9 In view of these facts and circumstances, I deem it proper

to direct the respondent to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- p.m.

for each daughter i.e. total Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the date of the

application until disposal of the Hindu Marriage Petition. The

arrears shall be paid within a period of three months from today.

Apart from the amount of maintenance, the respondent shall pay

litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- within the period

specified as above.

10 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

     11       There shall be no order as to costs.





     12       The Trial Court shall decide the H.M.P. No.72/2014 as

expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six

months from today.

(R.M.BORDE, J)

vbd