Bombay High Court
Vikas S/O. Premnath Wahane vs Sau. Suman Alias Madhuri Vikas ... on 28 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 judg wp 2008.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.2008 of 2016.
Vikas Premnath Wahane,
aged 39 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o.-B-504, Guruprem Building, Sector-10,
Khandeshwar, Navi Mumbai - 410209. .... Petitioner.
Versus
Sau Suman alias Madhuri Vikas Wahane,
aged 36 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o.-1. C/o.-Vinod Sitaram Meshram,
near Adarsh Vyayam Shala, Jatharpeth,
Akola Tah. & Distt. Akola.
2. C/o. Pandurang Chalke Panchvati Complex,
C-Wing, Room No.404, Plot No.64, Sector-14,
Khandeshwar, Navi Mumbai-410209. .... Respondent.
Shri U.J. Deshpande, Adv for petitioner.
Shri A.M. Tirukh, Adv for respondent.
Coram : S.B. Shukre, J.
th
Dated : 28
April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
2 judg wp 2008.16.odt
2] The main objection taken by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner in respect of the order impugned in this petition is that it
has been founded on erroneous assumption that the respondent
does not earn anything, there being no documentary evidence
produced on record by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He
points out from the copy of the statement of account (page no.42)
of the respondent wife that the statement of account shows credit
of Rs. 4,500/- and this being a salary account, it can be safely
stated that the respondent wife is earning some income. He
submits that this fact was not considered by the Family Court and,
therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back for fresh
consideration with liberty to adduce evidence.
3] Insofar as the prayer for remanding back the matter to the
trial Court with liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence is
concerned, I do not think such a request can be granted at this
stage. This Court is primarily concerned with the legality and
correctness of the order impugned in this petition and this Court
cannot go beyond what was submitted on record before the trial
Court while passing the impugned order. If the petitioner desires
to seek any modification in the impugned order owing to some
subsequent developments or knowledge subsequently acquired by
him, he may file an appropriate application before the same Court.
3 judg wp 2008.16.odt
4] Insofar as the question of reasonableness of the maintenance
granted by the Family Court is concerned, I find neither any
illegality nor any arbitrariness in the impugned order. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner has referred to me two cases viz;
Kanchan w/o Kamalendra Sawarkar v Kamalendra s/o Rajaram
Sawarkar, reported at 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 1595 and Pankaj Prakash
Gundawar v Shweta w/o Pankaj Gundawar, reported at 2011(5)
All MR 593. The facts of both these cases are distinguishable. In
the case of Kanchan w/o Kamalendra Sawarkar (supra) the non
applicant husband was found to be mentally and physically able
bodied person and therefore it was held that merely because the
business was closed it could not be found that he had no source to
earn. In the case of Pankaj Prakash Gundawar (supra) as the
Family Court had considered some entries of husband's bank
account in an improper manner the matter was remanded back to
the Family Court. Obviously, these facts are not involved in the
present case and therefore these two cases are not applicable to the
present case.
5] In the statement of account of respondent wife there is an
entry of Rs.4,500/-. If it is assumed on the basis of such an entry
4 judg wp 2008.16.odt
that respondent wife is earning some income may be to the extent
of Rs. 4,500/-, the further question would be as to whether or
not the respondent wife who is earning such an income, is able
to lead life in the same was as her husband and the answer would
be definitely, in the present scenario, no. A wife is also equally
entitled to lead a life in the same manner as her husband, and in
todays inflationary trends, it is not possible to maintain oneself on
a meager income of Rs. 4,500/-. Therefore, some supplement to
her income would be required by the respondent wife to maintain
the same standard of living as the petitioner. As ascertained from
the monthly salary of the petitioner, I am of the view that the
amount of Rs. 5000/- fixed by the Family Court, at this stage
cannot be said to be unreasonable.
6] Apart from what is said above, I must say, the petitioner will
also be having liberty to approach the Family Court for seeking
modification in the impugned order on the grounds permissible in
in law. Thus, I find no substance in this petition, the petition
deserves to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed with
liberty to the petitioner to approach the family Court for seeking
modification in the impugned order, if any, in accordance with law.
5 judg wp 2008.16.odt
7] Rule is discharged. No costs.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
