Bombay High Court
Nitesh S/O. Mangalmurti Lasne vs Supriya W/O. Nitesh Lasne And ... on 28 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
apl758.16 39
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.758 OF 2016
Nitesh s/o Mangalmurti Lasne,
Aged about years, Occupation Nil,
R/o C/o Smt. Durga Sanjay Kumbhalkar,
Near Kurve House,
Bangalipanja, Nagpur. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Supriya w/o Nitesh Lasne,
Aged about Major,
Occupation House.
2. Naitik s/o Nitesh Lasne,
Aged about 6 years,
Minor, through his natural
Guardian mother.
Both R/o C/o Pradeep Jamekar,
Near Vinayakrao Deshmukh High
School, Behind Advocate Hardas House,
Shantinagar, Nagpur. ..... Non-applicants
.
================================================================
Shri A.S. Band, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri U.P. Aakare, Counsel for the non-applicants.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2017.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 00:59:39 :::
Judgment
apl758.16 39
2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The present criminal application arises out of order
passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Nagpur dated
19.1.2016 below Exhibit 6 in Petition No.E-126 of 2015 by which
learned Judge of the Court below has directed the present
applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- each to non-applicant Nos.1 and 2.
3. Heard learned counsel Shri A.S. Band for the
applicant and learned counsel Shri U.P. Aakre for non-applicant
Nos.1 and 2.
4. It is not in dispute that non-applicant No.1 is wife of
applicant and non-applicant No.2 is son of applicant. Prima facie,
it appears that non-applicant No.1 is a household lady whereas
applicant is working as a supervisor in Surya Jyoti Paper Mill,
Bhandara Road, Nagpur. Prima facie, learned Judge of the Court
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 00:59:39 :::
Judgment
apl758.16 39
3
below found that income of the present applicant is Rs.10,000/- per
month. Learned Judge of the Court below has found that for no
fault of non-applicants, they were denied of their legitimate claim
and right to get themselves maintained at the hands of the present
applicant.
5. Learned counsel Shri A.S. Band for the applicant
submits that the present applicant is ready even to co-habit with
non-applicant No.1. However, no such proceeding under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are filed for restitution of
conjugal rights. That shows that the present applicant is trying to
dodge his responsibility by taking a spacious plea that he is ready
to co-habit with non-applicant No.1. Further, though he may have
dispute with his wife, he cannot absolve himself from maintaining
his son. It is not the case of the present applicant that till
directions were given by learned Judge of the Court below, on his
own he has paid in account towards maintenance either to non-
applicant No.1 or his minor son.
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 00:59:39 :::
Judgment
apl758.16 39
4
6. The present criminal application arises out of interim
orders passed by the Family Court at Nagpur. Further, prima
facie material is there to show that the applicant is drawing
Rs.10,000/- per month. In that view of the matter, payment of
amount of Rs.2,000/- per month is not excessive. Hence, I pass the
following order:
ORDER
i) The criminal application is rejected.
ii) The applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month
scrupulously to non-applicant Nos.1 and 2.
iii) The applicant to deposit the said amount of
Rs.2,000/- per month on or before 10th of every month
so also clear all arrears within a period of two weeks
from today.
iv) If the arrears are not cleared and if the applicant
fails to pay the maintenance regularly, the non-
.....5/-
Judgment
apl758.16 39
applicants are at liberty to file a proper application
before the Family Court for attachment of salary of
the applicant and it is expected from learned Judge
of the Court below to dispose of the said application
in accordance with law.
v) With this, the criminal application is rejected and
disposed of with costs of Rs.2,500/-.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
