Vinita W/O. Abhishek Dubey vs Abhishek S/O. Ashok Kumar Dubey
2017 Latest Caselaw 3542 Bom

                                                                                      wp183.17 19
                                                 1



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

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.183 OF 2017

Vinita w/o Abhishek Dubey, Aged 31 
years, R/o Flat No.101, Rajat Utsav 
Society, Kachimet-10, Amravati Road, 
Nagpur.                                                                    ..... Petitioner.

                                          ::  versus  ::

Abhishek s/o Ashok Kumar Dubey, Age
33 years, R/o Flat No.302, Shubham 
Villa, Near Medishine Hospital, New 
Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarth).      ..... Respondent.

 ======================================================================
          Shri Y.J. Maheshwari, Counsel for the petitioner.
          Shri Masood Shareef, Counsel for the respondent.
 ======================================================================


                            CORAM :  V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : JUNE 22 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The order, impugned in this criminal writ petition, is

.....2/-

wp183.17 19

passed by learned Judge of Family Court at Nagpur dated

18.2.2017 below Exhibit 175 in Petition No.E-249 of 2014.

3. The petitioner approached to the Family Court by

moving an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and prayed for grant of maintenance. The said

proceedings are contested by the respondent by filing the written

statement.

4. It is an admitted position that during the pendency of

the main proceedings for maintenance, learned Judge of the

Family Court has already granted interim maintenance to the

tune of Rs.15,000/-.

In another matter, which was listed before this Court

yesterday, it was pointed out to this Court that the respondent

husband is in arrears of maintenance for a period of four months

and in those proceedings statement of learned counsel Shri

Masood Shareef, who is representing in the present case for the

respondent husband also represented the respondent husband in

.....3/-

wp183.17 19

that criminal writ petition, was that the respondent husband will

clear of maintenance for four months within a period of ten days.

5. By the impugned order, learned Judge of the Family

Court has rejected the application filed on behalf of the

petitioner for issuance of witness summons to C.S.I.D.C. Raipur.

Admittedly, the father of the respondent husband is in

employment of said C.S.I.D.C. Raipur. The application for

issuance of witness summons to C.S.I.D.C. Raipur was sought to

be issued for the reason that the petitioner wife wished to point

out the income of her father-in-law for determination of quantum

of maintenance.

6. Worth to note that in the written statement nowhere

the respondent husband has claimed that he has to maintain his

father also.

In that view of the matter, the dependency of the father

is not at all to be considered by learned Judge of the Family

Court while deciding the quantum of maintenance.

.....4/-

wp183.17 19

7. It is also submitted before this Court by learned counsel

Shri Y.J. Maheshwari for the petitioner that the documents, in

respect of the employment of the father of the respondent

husband who is working with C.S.I.D.C. Raipur and in respect of

the salary, are already placed on record by the petitioner which

she has obtained from the Website of the C.S.I.D.C. Raipur who is

employer of the father of the respondent husband and who has

published the same on the Website in compliance to the

provisions of the Right to Information Act.

However, learned counsel Shri Masood Shareef for the

respondent husband submits that those documents are already

denied by the respondent.

8. Thus, those documents are available on record and it is

always open for learned Judge of the Family Court to consider

admissibility of those said documents in view the provisions of

Section 14 of the Family Court Act.

9. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to set aside

.....5/-

wp183.17 19

order passed by learned Judge of the Court dated 18.2.2017.

Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-