Bombay High Court
Mohan S/O. Namdeorao Dhabale vs Vaishali W/O. Mohan Dhabale on 27 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp.2499.16.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2499 OF 2016
Petitioner : Mohan s/o Namdeorao Dhabale,
Aged about 51 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Modipadav, Kamptee, Tah. Kamptee,
District Nagpur.
ig -- Versus --
Respondent : Vaishali w/o Mohan Dhabale,
Aged about 42 years, Occu. Business,
R/o c/o Shri Ramdas Zanzad,
Plot No.59, Solankiwadi, Tukobagram,
Bidipeth, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri J.M. Shamkuwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S.K. Neware, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 27
JUNE, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
01] Heard Shri J.M. Shamkuwar, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Shri S.K. Neware, learned Advocate for the respondent.
02] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
03] The petitioner-husband has challenged the order passed by the
trial Court directing him to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-
2 wp.2499.16.jud
wife towards interim maintenance.
04] The respondent-wife had filed Petition No. A-295/2009
praying for decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court by
judgment dated 30/11/2013 allowed the petition directing husband to
resume cohabitation with wife and further directing the husband to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to wife and Rs.1,000/- per
month to the son, till the husband resumes cohabitation with the wife. He
submitted that the proceedings to execute the decree passed by the Family
Court are pending.
05] The learned Advocate for the wife has submitted that the
husband is not paying interim maintenance as per the above order.
06] The husband has filed H.M.P. No.58/2011 praying for decree
for divorce. In these proceedings, the wife had filed an application
[Exhibit-9] praying that the husband be directed to pay interim
maintenance and litigation expenses. The trial Court by an order dated
17/02/2012 rejected the claim of the wife for interim maintenance on the
ground that the wife was receiving maintenance as per the order passed in
the proceedings filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights, however, the
trial Court directed the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation
3 wp.2499.16.jud
expenses. The order dated 17/02/2012 was challenged before this Court
in Writ Petition No.1548/2012 which is dismissed on 20/03/2013.
07] The wife again filed an application [Exhibit-55] praying for
interim maintenance. The trial Court by the impugned order has directed
the husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife towards interim
maintenance. The husband being aggrieved by this order has filed the writ
petition.
08] The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
claim of the wife for maintenance was rejected by the trial Court by order
dated 17/02/2012 on the ground that the wife is receiving maintenance as
per the order passed in the proceedings filed by her for restitution of
conjugal rights, that this order is maintained by this Court and, therefore, it
is not open for the trial Court to grant prayer of the wife for interim
maintenance.
09] I have gone through the impugned order. The learned trial
Judge has considered the above facts in paragraph 2 of the impugned order
and after dealing with the relevant aspects and the judgment cited before
him and after considering the income of the petitioner-husband, the
directions regarding payment of interim maintenance have been issued.
4 wp.2499.16.jud
10] I find that the impugned order is proper and does not suffer
from any patent illegality or perversity. I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order. The petition is dismissed with costs quantified at
Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within one
month.
JUDGE
*sdw
