Mr. Milind Nagorao Tapare vs Mrs. Chetna Milind Tapare D/O ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8010 Bom

                                      1                            wp135of2015.odt


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



              Criminal Writ Petition (WP) No. 135 of 2015


PETITIONER                     :   Mr. Milind Nagorao Tapare,
                                   Aged about 31 years, Occu: Service,
                                   R/o At A-502, Sonigara Angan, Near 
                                   PCMC Water Tank, Ravet, 
                                   Pune:412001.


                                   // VERSUS//

RESPONDENT                     :   Mrs. Chetna Milind Tapare 
                                   d/o Shamrao Wagh,
                                   Aged about 28 years, Occu:Housewife, 
                                   R/o at Pundlik Baba Colony, 
                                   Near Chaitanya Colony, By pass Road, 
                                   Amravati-12.

__________________________________________________________

          Shri Soumitra Paliwal, Advocate for Petitioner.
          Shri R.D. Wakode, Advocate for Respondent. 
__________________________________________________________

CORAM :    R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 

DATE     :   10/10/2017


ORAL JUDGMENT 



1]              Rule,   made   returnable   forthwith.   Heard   finally     by 

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 





                                         2                              wp135of2015.odt


2]              The   challenge   in   this   petition   is   to   the   order   dated 

08/12/2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge of Family Court

at Amravati, granting interim maintenance of Rs. 14,000/-

(Rupees fourteen thousand) per month to the Respondent-Wife,

with effect from 02/05/2013.

3] It is conceded by Shri Paliwal, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-wife, that the direction to pay the

maintenance with effect from 02/05/2013 cannot be justified.

However, he submits that the application was filed on 28/02/2014

and hence, he has no objection if the date "02/05/2013" is

corrected as "28/02/2014". Hence, maintenance shall be made

payable from 28/02/2014 under the order impugned in this

petition.

4] Shri Paliwal, has also challenged the grant of

maintenance of Rs. 14,000/-, by inviting my attention to

paragraph-22 of the petition, wherein it has been stated that the

petitioner is paying home loan and installment. It is not

permissible to grant deductions of such installment from the

amount of his earnings. The contention is, therefore, rejected.

                                         3                              wp135of2015.odt


5]              In   the   result,   the   petition   accordingly   partly   allowed. 

The date date "02/05/2013" appearing in the order of the Family

Court, impugned in this petition, shall stand corrected as

"28/02/2014". Rest of the order is maintained.

6] Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

nandurkar