Prakash Vishwanath Pitlewad vs Sanjeevani Alias Nirmala W/O ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6348 Bom

                                                                                                             owp.1388.15
                                                                 1




                                                                                                                   
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          BENCH AT NAGPUR 
                                                 ...




                                                                                     
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1388 /2015
              Prakash Vishwanath Pitlewad 
              Aged about  56 years, occu: Service




                                                                                    
              R/o Hadsani, Tq. Mahur 
              Dist. Nanded PIN  Code 431721                                                        ...PETITIONER

                         v e r s u s




                                                                    
    1)        Sanjeevani  @ Nirmala w/o Prakash Pitlewad
              Aged about 42 years        
              occu: Household work. 

    2)        Akshay Prakash Pitlewad 
                                        
              Aged about  17 years, minor 
              Through his natural guardian 
              Mother Respondent No.1

              Both R/o  Kosdani  Tq.Arni 
       

              Dist. Yavatmal.                                                                      ..RESPONDENTS
    



    ...........................................................................................................................
                         Mr. Sarabjeetsingh Adv.h/for Mr. J.B.Gandhi, 
                         Advocate  for  petitioner
                         Mr. S.V. Ingole, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2 
    ............................................................................................................................





                                                         CORAM:   A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
                                                         DATED  :  25th October,  2016.

    ORAL  JUDGMENT :





     1.                   In   view   of   the   notice   for   final     disposal   issued     earlier,   the 

     learned counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule  and making 

     the same returnable forthwith. 

     2.                   The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2015 passed 




          ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016                                                ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:57:02 :::
                                                                                      owp.1388.15
                                                  2




                                                                                          
    by   the   trial   Court   in   execution   proceedings,   whereby     the   salary   of   the 

    petitioner   has   been   attached,   with   a   further   direction   to   his   employer   to 




                                                                  
    deduct an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month till the  arrears of Rs.1,80,000/- 

    are recovered.




                                                                 
    3.               Shri Sarabjeetsingh, h/for Mr J.B.Gandhi,   learned counsel for 

    the petitioner  submitted  that there are various liabilities which  have  to  be 




                                                     
    shouldered by the petitioner and hence instead of deducting   an amount of 
                                  
    Rs. 6,000/- per month by attaching his salary,  the petitioner is willing to  pay 

    Rs.   5,000/-   per   month   towards   the   arrears   of   maintenance   with   further 
                                 
    deposit of Rs. 10,000/- annually for clearing the said  arrears.  He submitted 

    that the petitioner has   filed an affidavit dated 22.8.2016 incorporating this 
      

    undertaking.     He,   therefore,   submits   that   the   impugned   order   be   suitably 

    modified  by accepting the  aforesaid undertaking .
   



                     Shri Ingole,  the learned counsel for the  repsondents submitted 

    that the peititione ris in arrears of maintenance and hence the direction to 





    attach his salary does not call for any interference. He also made a grievance 

    that monthly maitnenance is not being paid tothe respondents. 





                     After   hearing   the     learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and 

    considering the undertaking tendered by the petitioner on oath, the interest of 

    jsutice wouldbe met   if the impugned orderis mdoified and the peititione ris 

    directed to comply with his undertaking dated 22.8.2016. Byfollowing that 




         ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016                             ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:57:02 :::
                                                                                    owp.1388.15
                                                 3




                                                                                        
    course,the   respondents   wouldbe   receiving   an   amount   of   Rs.   70,000/-   per 

    annuam   that would enable   the arrears to be cleared.  




                                                                
                    Accordingly, the following order is passed :-

    ORDER :

(i)The direction to attach the salary of the peititioner as per order dated

6.1.2015 is set aside.

(ii)The undertaking dated 22.8.2016 furnished by the petitioner is accepted

as an undertaking to this Court. The peititioner shall comply with the

conditions stipulated in paragrpah 3 of the said undertaking which would

operate fromthe month of November, 2016. The respondents would be at

liberty to take approprirate steps in case there is breach of this undertaking.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

sahare