Bombay High Court
Shri Shailesh S/O Chandraprakash ... vs The Honble Judge, Family Court No. ... on 1 August, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 5947.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5947 OF 2016
Shri Shailesh s/o Chandraprakash
Khanorkar, Aged 34 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Jogithanapeth, Near Jaiswal
Wine Shop, Tahsil-Umred,
District-Nagpur. .. PETITIONER
.. VERSUS ..
1] The Hon'ble Principal Judge,
Family Court No.1, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. .. Deleted
2] Mrs. Himani w/o Shailesh Khanorkar,
Age 27 years, Occupation-Nil,
C/o. Ashok Shende, Tandapeth New
Locality, Near Naik Talao, P.S.
Panchpaoli, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri M.S. Vakil, Advocate for Petitioner,
Shri P.A. Markandeywar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : AUGUST 01, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for parties.
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:29:34 :::
WP 5947.16.odt 2
2] The challenge in petition is to the order dated
23.3.2016 passed by Family Court, Nagpur in Maintenance
Application No.49/2015 filed in Petition No. A-64/2015 by
respondent-wife for interim maintenance.
3] By the said order, the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Nagpur granted Rs.4,500/- per month to
respondent and Rs.2,000/- per month to minor daughter
with effect from 1.1.2015 in addition to interim maintenance
at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent and
Rs.1,000/- per month to child granted in domestic violence
case.
4] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated
in brief as under :
(i) Petitioner and respondent no.2 were
married on 28.6.2012. They were blessed with a girl child
on 28.4.2013. In view of matrimonial bickerings, they
started residing separately.
(ii) Respondent no.2 filed petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights. During pendency of petition, she filed an
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:29:34 :::
WP 5947.16.odt 3
application for maintenance pendente lite. Upon hearing
the parties, learned Judge passed the impugned order.
Being aggrieved, petitioner-husband has filed the present
petition.
5] The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
respondent no.2 had suppressed the material fact before the
Family Court that interim maintenance was granted to her
and child in domestic violence case. From the perusal of
order, it is apparent that in paragraph 3 (vi), Family Court
has referred to undisputed facts and mentioned that
petitioner therein was awarded interim maintenance at
Rs.2,500/- per month for herself and Rs.1,000/- for daughter.
In view of the same, contention raised by petitioner appears
to be against the record and does not sustain.
6] The next submission on behalf of petitioner is that
salary slip produced by wife was, in fact, containing three
months salary and Family Court has passed the impugned
order by placing reliance on such a salary slip. The
submission is that dependency on petitioner of his old aged
mother and his own expenses were not at all considered by
the court below while awarding interim maintenance.
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:29:34 :::
WP 5947.16.odt 4
7] With the assistance of learned counsel for parties,
this court has gone through the impugned order, application
for interim maintenance and reply filed by husband to
interim maintenance application.
8] It is pertinent to note that no where in reply,
husband had stated that salary slip was containing three
months salary. He raised defence that he gets meager
earning and it is not possible for him to pay interim
maintenance. Family Court has taken note of the pleadings
and properly considered the material on record. In the
above premise, no fault can be found with the impugned
order. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.5947 of 2016 stands dismissed.
(ii) Rule is discharged.
(iii) No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
