Bombay High Court
Ajay Dhanraj Bagaitkar vs Kalyani Ajay Bagaitkar And ... on 15 March, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp831.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.831/2015
Ajay Dhanraj Bagaitkar,
age 35 Yrs., Occu. Student/unemployed,
R/o - C/o Marotiraoji s/o Wadgiji Ghavghave,
Plot No.18, Gopal Nagar, 3rd Bus Stop,
Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..Versus..
1. Kalyani Ajay Bagaitkar,
age 27 Yrs., Occu. Household.
2. Tanmay Ajay Bagaitkar,
age 2 Yrs, through its mother
guardian petitioner no.1.
Both R/o C/o Gulab Nathuji Bhasme,
Ramnagar, Kondhali, Tah. Katol,
Disst. Nagpur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- -
Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri I.J. Damle, Advocate for the respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 15. 3.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.S. Dhengale, advocate for the petitioner and Shri I.J. Damle,
advocate for the respondents.
2 wp831.15
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed the
petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent no.1 (wife) and
Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent no.2 ( minor son).
4. Shri Dhengale, advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in proceedings
filed by the petitioner praying for decree for divorce, the Family Court has passed an
order on 22nd March, 2013 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month to the respondent no.1 (wife). It is submitted that though copy of this order was
placed on the record of criminal revision application, inadvertently submissions were
not made by either parties relying on that. The fact that the respondent no.1 (wife) is
receiving the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month from the petitioner pursuant to the order
passed by the Family Court on 22nd March, 2013 is not disputed on behalf of the
respondent no.1 (wife). The effect of the above order is not considered by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order.
5. In view of the above facts, in my view, the impugned order is required to be
3 wp831.15
modified as follows:
(i) Considering that the petitioner is paying Rs.5,000/- per month towards
maintenance to the respondent no.1 (wife), directions given by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge to the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
respondent no.1 (wife) are set aside.
(ii) The directions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to petitioner to
pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent no.2 (minor son) are
maintained.
The petitioner shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to the
respondent no.2 (minor son) in addition to the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month which
the petitioner is required to pay as per the order passed by the Family Court on 22 nd
March, 2013.
(iii) The petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
(iv) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
