Bombay High Court
Naresh S/O. Sundarlal Kotturwar vs Bharti W/O. Naresh Kotturwar And ... on 16 November, 2017
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
1611WP582.17-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 582 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Naresh s/o Sundarlal Kotturwar, Aged about
37 years, Occupation: Service, Resident of
Behind Vetinary College, Near Kanchanmala
Marathi School, Surendragarh, Seminary
Hills, Nagpur-440006.
[Original Respondent]
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Bharti w/o Naresh Kotturwar, Aged about
34 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident
of D/o Nanayya Dassar, Tent Line, Near
Ambika Bakery, Mohan Nagar, Nagpur
440001.
2. Disha d/o Naresh Kotturwar, Aged about 5
years, Through her Natural Guardian
Mother Smt. Bharti w/o Naresh Kotturwar,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation:
Housewife, Resident of D/o Nanayya Dassar,
Tent Line, Near Ambika Bakery, Mohan
Nagar, Nagpur 440001.
[Original Petitioners]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Sachin Katarpawar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.M.S.Shahu, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:57:07 :::
1611WP582.17-Judgment 2/4
CORAM : SMT.REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATED : 16.11.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner-husband has impugned the
order dated 16/02/2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Nagpur below Exhibit-6, by which the respondents' application
for interim maintenance was partly allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits, that
the petitioner is working as a driver in a private firm and is receiving a
salary of about Rs.7,600/- per month. He submits, that the interim
maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is exorbitant and that if
Rs.5,000/- per month is paid to the respondents as directed, the
petitioner-husband is left with a meager amount i.e. only Rs.2,600/-. He
further submits, that the petitioner's sister and mother are dependent on
him. He therefore prays, that the interim maintenance granted by the
Trial Court be reduced.
1611WP582.17-Judgment 3/4
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife opposes the
petition. He submits, that no interference is warranted in the impugned
order dated 16/02/2017. He submits that, that the petitioner-husband
is under a legal and moral obligations to maintain the respondents,
inasmuch as, the respondent No.1 has no source of income. He
submits, that infact, the petitioner-husband is earning an amount of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
5. Perused the papers. Admittedly, the petitioner-husband
and the respondent-wife got married on 13/05/2011, at Nagpur. From
the said wedlock, respondent No.2-Disha was born on 23/03/2012. It
appears, that the parties are living separately for the last two years. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner-husband is working as a driver in a
private firm. The only bone of contention is, the salary received by the
petitioner-husband as a driver from the said private firm. According to
the petitioner, he is receiving a sum of Rs.7,600/-, whereas according to
the respondents, the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per
month. Although, it was contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner-husband, that he has obtained LIC policies for himself and his
daughter, when asked to produce the LIC policies, the petitioner-
husband has only produced the policies taken in his name and not in
the name of his daughter i.e. respondent No.2. The learned Principal
1611WP582.17-Judgment 4/4
Judge, Nagpur has rightly come to the conclusion, that the petitioner
must be atleast drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month as a driver.
Admittedly, none of the parties had produced the salary certificate. In
any event, the petitioner-husband is working with a private firm as a
driver and must be atleast drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month
and hence, the interim maintenance awarded cannot be faulted. It is
informed, that the petitioner's father was a Government Servant and as
such the petitioner's mother is receiving pension. The order passed by
the learned Principal Judge is just and reasonable. No interference is
warranted in writ jurisdiction in the impugned order dated
16/02/2017. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
6. The petitioner-husband to comply with the impugned
order dated 16/02/2017. The trial pending before the Family Court is
expedited.
Rule stands discharged.
7. All the parties to act upon the authenticate copy of this
order.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
