Bombay High Court
Satish Dharmu Rathod vs Shshma Satish Rathod on 21 August, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/10236/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10236 OF 2017
Satish Dharmu Rathod
Age 29 years, Occ. Education
R/o Crime Branch Quarters,
No.6, First Building, MIDC
Policy Colony, Maheshwarinagar,
Andheri (E). ..Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sushma Satish Rathod
Age 23 years, Occ. Household
at present r/o c/o Ganpat
Harilal Pawar, Plot No.2,
Prabhatnagar, Bhausingpura,
Aurangabad. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Deshmukh Arvind
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Salgar Suresh P.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 21, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the
petition is taken up for final disposal.
WP/10236/2017
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2017
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, granting
Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance from the date of the
application i.e. 10.3.2017.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that as he failed to file
his say to the application Exhibit 10, by which the respondent /
wife sought interim maintenance, the impugned order is
practically an ex-parte order.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates for the respective sides.
7. It is apparent that the petitioner was negligent and did not
file his say inspite of several opportunities. Notwithstanding the
same, the impugned order is without considering his contentions.
The petitioner claims to be unemployed, though his father is an
Assistant Police Inspector.
8. I find that had the petitioner been diligent and had filed
his say in time, his contentions would have been considered.
WP/10236/2017
9. Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed and
the impugned order dated 19.6.2017 is set aside with the
following directions:-
(A) Application Exhibit 10 is restored to the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad.
(B) The impugned order is quashed by imposing costs
of Rs.5,000/- upon the petitioner for having failed to be
diligent.
(C) The arrears of interim maintenance are said to be
about Rs.11,000/- since the petitioner claims to have paid
Rs.14,000/- by depositing it in the Court below.
Consequentially, the petitioner shall deposit the arrears of
interim maintenance before the Court below and would
continue to pay the said interim maintenance till the
decision on application Exhibit 10.
(D) The petitioner shall deposit the amount of costs
and the arrears of interim maintenance on/or before
8.9.2017, failing which, this order shall stand recalled and
the impugned order dated 19.6.2017 shall stand restored.
WP/10236/2017
(E) The petitioner shall file his say to Exhibit 10 on/or
before 8.9.2017.
(F) The Family Court shall endeavour to decide
application Exhibit 10 within eight weeks from the date of
depositing the costs and arrears of the interim
maintenance.
10. Rule is made partly absolute.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
