Bombay High Court
Nikhil Alias Yeshu S/O Madhu Alias ... vs Sau. Sweta Alias Lochani Nikhil ... on 23 June, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
wp31.17.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT ETITION NO. 31 OF 2017
Nikhil alias Yeshu S/o Madhav alias
Mahadeo Sonone, Aged 34 years,Occ-Nil,
R/o Makrampur,Tq.Akot,
District-Akola.
Presently at Trimurti Apartment,
Jatharpeth/Akola,Tq. And
District-Akola,
(P.S.Civil Lines,Akola) ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Sau.Sweta alias Lochani Nikhil Sonone,
Aged 32 years,Occ-Business,
2. Master Anshul alilas Vansha Nikhil Sonone,
Aged 2 years,
3. Master Pranshul alias Prince Nikil Sonone,
Aged 2 years,
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are minor, through
their natural guardian mother-respondent
no.1 .
All R/o C/o Smt. Sandhyatai Vithalrao Ingale,
Rajratna Residency, Jatharpeth Chowk,
near Fadake Hospital, Akola,Tq. And
District-Akola.
(P.S.,Civil Lines, Akola) ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.S.Warulkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JUNE 23,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2] This writ petition takes exception to the order passed
by Learned Judge of the Family Court dated 22/11/2016 , below
Exh.10 in E.P.No.98/2016, partly allowing the application for
interim maintenance pending main proceeding. By impugned
order, Learned Judge has directed the present petitioner to pay
amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance
to present respondent no.1 and Rs. 3,000/- to each of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 towards their maintenance for every
month.
3] Heard Shri N.S.Warulkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 1 to 3.
4] Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are wife and minor sons of the
present petitioner. The marriage between petitioner and
respondent no.1 was solemnised on 5/2/2014 as per the Hindu
rites and customs at Ratnam Lawn, Jatharpeth, Akola. Thereafter
she started residing in her matrimonial house. She was subjected
to harassment at the hands of the petitioner and his family
members for a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and for other articles. The
respondent nos. 2 and 3 are twins, even after their birth the
harassment continued. After the birth of twins on 30/10/2014, the
present petitioner did not bother to visit them. Due to the
harassment to the respondent no.1 her father used to lead tense
life. Due to such tension ultimately he expired on 04/05/2014.
Respondent no.1 was assaulted at the hands of present
petitioner. Even on 5/2/2016, it was the marriage anniversary.
Even on that day respondent no.1 was subjected to illtreatment at
the hands of the petitioner. These are the statement of facts which
respondent no.1 has mentioned in her application for interim
maintenance.
5] Petitioner filed reply and has denied each and every
allegations. Learned Judge found that the petitioner is a qualified
engineer holding B.E. degree and is a Government Contractor. It
is also not in dispute that the father of the present petitioner is a
retired Deputy Engineer. The family of the petitioner also owns
agricultural land.
6] It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent
no.1 also runs a beauty parlour however, no documents are filed
on record to show her income. Interim maintenance is granted by
the Court pending main application for maintenance in order to
see that the applicants should not come on road and they should
have the means to survive. Strict proof of income is also not
expected at the time of deciding the application for interim
maintenance. The Court can use its discretion by deducing
inference from the documents filed on record. Admissibility of
those documents of course will be decided when the parties will be
entered into the witness box.
7] Yesterday, this matter was listed. The order passed by
this Court on 25/1/2017 shows that interim order was granted in
favour of the present petitioner on a condition that he will be
depositing Rs. 2000/- for each of the respondents. Thus, he was
under obligation to pay Rs. 6000/- per month. When a query was
posed yesterday to Shri N.S.Warulkar,learned counsel for
petitioner as to whether the amount as directed by this Court was
deposited or not. Shri Warulkar, learned counsel for petitioner
from the instructions from the petitioner who was personally
present in the Court stated that as per the order passed by this
Court entire amount is paid. This statement was disputed by Shri
Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for respondents and therefore the
matter was kept today. When the matter was called Shri Abhay
Sambre, learned counsel for respondents filed a pursis which is
taken on record and it is marked as document X for the purpose
of identification and the copy is given to Shri Warulkar, learned
counsel for petitioner. It shows that petitioner has deposited only
Rs. 27,000/- and not entire amount. On that Shri Warulkar,
learned counsel for petitioner admitted that only Rs. 27,000/- has
been deposited by the petitioner and today he has deposited Rs.
3000/-, still entire arrears is not cleared. Thus, petitioner has
taken undue advantage of the order passed by this Court on
25/1/2017 and has shown disrespect to the order passed by this
Court. The attitude of such litigants has to be deprecated. Even
otherwise, the petition is arising out of the interim order I see no
reason to disturb the arrangement made by the Learned Judge of
the Family Court pending the decision of main application for
maintenance in order to see that respondents who are wife and
minor sons age of 2-3 years are properly maintained. Hence, the
writ petition is dismissed, however with a costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
8] Needless to mention, the costs should be deposited
with the Family Court within a period of two weeks, failing which
the Family Court is directed to pass the appropriate order for
striking of the defence of the petitioner.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
kitey
