Bombay High Court
Revti Rajensh Taksalkar vs Rajesh Gangaram Takslakar And Ors on 26 August, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 794/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 794 OF 2016
Revti w/o. Rajensh Taksalkar,
Age 31 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Aarvi, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. Rajesh s/o. Gangaram Takslakar,
Age 34 years, Occu. Agri.,
2. Gangaram s/o. Baburao Taksalkar,
Age 63 years, Occu. Agri.,
3. Gangubai w/o. Gangaram Taksalkar,
Age 58 years, Occu. Household,
All R/o. Sirpur, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.B. Kadam h/f. Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos.
1 to 3.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 26th August, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
2) The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made
on Exh. 32 in Regular Civil Suit No. 28/2012, which is pending in
the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Manta, District Jalna.
The said proceeding is filed for relief of maintenance and order
WP No. 794/2016
of interim maintenance is also made in the said proceeding in
favour of petitioner, wife. As the interim maintenance is not
paid, application was moved at Exh. 32 for striking of the
defence of the defendant, husband. After hearing both the sides,
the Trial Court rejected the application. The Trial Court held that
it is the discretionary relief and it will not be proper to strike of
the defence.
3)
The submissions made and the record show that the
wife was required to file proceeding for maintenance under
section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and in that proceeding,
maintenance came to be granted by the decision dated
10.12.2012 and it was granted from the date of application i.e.
27.2.2006. Then the civil suit was also filed, but in the year
2012 and in the civil suit, maintenance at the same rate is
granted as interim maintenance. The submissions made and the
record show that in January 2013, last time husband paid
maintenance and he is in huge arrears of maintenance. In view
of these circumstances, this Court gave opportunity to the
husband to show that some amount was paid after the order
made by Civil Court. There is virtually no record with the
husband to show that any amount was paid. Thus, on one hand,
WP No. 794/2016
husband is not paying anything as maintenance both in
accordance with order made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class
and in accordance with the order made by the Civil Court. He is
only seeking time. Due to this conduct, it can be said that he is
interested only in protracting the decision of the matter. If no
order to strike of defence is made, the husband will do
everything to see that decision of the Civil Court is protracted.
That will cause harassment to the wife.
4) The learned counsel for wife placed reliance on
the case reported as 1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 297 BOMBAY HIGH
COURT [Vanmala w/o. Maroti Hatkar Vs. Maroti Sambhaji
Hatkar]. In this case, this Court has discussed the provision of
section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and section 151 of
Civil Procedure Code and held that Court can strike of defence of
such party. On this point, the learned Judge of the Trial Court
has referred one case and in the present proceeding, the
learned counsel for husband placed reliance on the case
reported as 2007 (2) AIR BOMBAY Report 121 [Ramavatar
Surajmal Modi Vs. Mulchand Surajmal Modi]. In this case,
the Division Bench of this Court has discussed the provisions of
Maharashtra Amendment and it is laid down that the rule
WP No. 794/2016
applicable in Maharashtra is directory in nature. For making such
observations, one case of Supreme Court is referred by this
Court. It is true that this provision is directory in nature, but the
fact remains that the Court is expected to use the discretion
when the party is suffering due to conduct of other side and the
party cannot prosecute the matter effectively due to the conduct
of other side. No reasoning at all is given by the Trial Court for
not using the discretion in favour of the wife. There are
aforesaid circumstances and this Court holds that the order has
no support of reasons and so, interference is warranted. It
needs to be kept in mind that it will be open to husband to come
forward and to deposit the money and he can again participate
in the matter as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case cited supra.
5) In the result, petition is allowed. Order made by the
Trial Court on Exh. 32 in R.C.S. No. 28/2012 is hereby set aside.
The application is allowed and the defence of the defendant is
struck of.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
