Purushottam S/O. Bhaurao Jivtode vs Sonali W/O. Purushottam Jivtode ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9799 Bom

WP  522/17                                            1                            Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 522/2017
Purushottam S/o Bhaurao Jivtode,
Aged about 50 years, occupation :-
government servant,
R/o NMC Quarter, Sane Guruji Urdu
Primary School Kothi Road, Mahal, Nagpur.                                            PETITIONER

                                     .....VERSUS.....
1.      Sonali W/o Purushottam Jivtode,
        Aged about 37 years, Occ:- Service.
2.      Sanskruti D/o Purushottam Jivtode,
        Aged about 12 years, Occupation: Student,
        Being Minor, through natural guardian i.e. 
        Respondent no.1 mother.

Both R/o C/o Devidas Bapurao Dukare, Bapu 
Niwas Plot No.66/A, Ashirwad Nagar, Nagpur.                                   RESPONDE
                                                                                       NTS

Mr. D.M. Khandait, counsel for the petitioner. 
Mr. R.R. Prajapati, counsel for the respondents.


                                         CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

                                          DATE        :          19  TH      DECEMBER,   2017.
P.C. 

               Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties.     Rule   is   made

returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for the parties

and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated

05.12.2016 passed below Exhibit 6 (Interim Application No.82/2016) in

Petition No.E-47/2016 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Nagpur.

WP 522/17 2 Judgment

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the

respondent no.1 had deserted the petitioner, the respondents were not

entitled to any maintenance. He further submitted that the respondent

no.1 is working as a Laboratory Technician in a private hospital and is

drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He submitted that the

respondent no.1 is also getting income from the land standing in the

name of her father. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the respondent no.1 is staying with her grandfather and as such, her

grandfather is looking after her. He further submitted that the net

salary received by the petitioner is about Rs.5,900/- per month,

though the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.26,544/-. Learned counsel

for the petitioner further submitted that at the time when the petitioner

got married to the respondent no.1, it was agreed that the responsibility

of respondent no.2 would be entirely on the respondent no.1's parents

and as such, the respondent no.2 is not entitled to receive any

maintenance.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and

submitted that no interference was warranted in the impugned order

dated 05.12.2016. He submitted that the respondents do not have any

source of income and as such, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to

maintain both the respondents. He further disputed the fact, that the

WP 522/17 3 Judgment

respondent no.1 was working as a Laboratory Technician in any private

hospital or that the respondent no.1 was getting income from any other

sources. He further denied that there was any arrangeement between the

petitioner and the respondent no.1 that after their marriage, the

respondent no.2's responsibility will be with the respondent no.1's

parents.

5. Perused the papers as well as the impugned order.

Admittedly, the petitioner, a divorcee and the respondent no.1, a widow

got married in June-2012. Both, the petitioner and the respondent no.1

have children from their earlier marriages; the petitioner has two

daughters and the respondent no.1 has one daughter, i.e. the respondent

no.2. After the petitioner and the respondent no.1 got married, the

respondent no.2 started suffixing the petitioner's name as her father.

Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Peon in the Nagpur Municipal

Corporation and is drawing gross salary of Rs.26,544/- per month. It

appears that the petitioner has taken various loans, as a result of which,

the net salary received by him is Rs.5,900/-. The deduction of

Rs.18,000/- and odd consists of G.P.F. advance, society loan and L.I.C.

loan and cannot be considered as admissible deductions. Admittedly, no

documents have been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the

respondent no.1 is working as a Laboratory Technician in a private

WP 522/17 4 Judgment

hospital or that she has any source of income. Prima-facie, there is no

merit in the submission that there was an arrangement between the

petitioner and the respondent no.1 that after their marriage, the

respondent no.2's responsibility will be with the respondent no.1's

parents. The impugned order by which maintenance was awarded to

each of the respondents, i.e. Rs.2,500/- per month, cannot be said to be

either perverse or unsustainable, warranting interference in writ

jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is dismissed. Rule stands

discharged. The observations are prima-facie, and as such all contentions

of the parties are kept open, to be agitated during trial.

7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.

JUDGE

APTE