Shri. Aashish S/O. Anandrao ... vs Sau. Reema W/O. Aashish Gabhane ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 1156 Bom

Cri.W.P. No.1128/2017                         1

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

              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1128 OF 2017

Petitioner:                       Shri Aashish s/o Anandrao Gabhane,
                                  Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
                                  R/o Vir Sawarkar Ward,
                                  Near Nanoti Sangit Vidyalaya, Bhandara,
                                  Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.

                                  -- Versus --

Respondents              :      1] Sau. Reema w/o Aashish Gabhane,
                                   Aged about 35 years, Occ. Architect.


                                2] Ku. Shatakshi d/o Aashish Gabhane,
                                   Aged about 4 years, Occ. Nil.

                                  (Applicants No.2, being Minor through her
                                  natural Guardian Mother Applicant No.1.)

                                  Both are R/o C/o Dr. Gunwant Chandrabhanji
                                  Rewatkar,
                                  30, Process Surveyer Housing Society,
                                  Swawlambi Nagar, Nagpur 440 022.

           =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
            Ms. Shilpa P. Giratkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
           Shri R.M. Daruwala, Advocate for the Respondents.
           =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                         CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

                         DATE         : 30th JANUARY, 2018.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

02] This petition challenges the order of interim

maintenance dated 26/04/2017 passed by the Family Court No.3,

Nagpur and also seeks stay to the effect and operation of the order

dated 30/10/2017 attaching salary of the petitioner to the extent of

Rs.15,000/- towards payment of interim maintenance amount to

the respondents.

03] The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

submitted that there is an admission given by respondent no.1 that

at the time when the interim maintenance order was passed, she

possessed a B.Arch. Degree. But the petitioner could not show me

any such admission having been given by respondent no.1 before

the Family Court. It appears that after the impugned order was

passed, respondent no.1 was conferred with B.Arch. Degree in June,

2017. But I must say, possession of an educational qualification

enabling a person to earn his livelihood is of no use till the time the

educational qualification fetches actual living to that person. In the

present case, at this stage, there is no evidence available on record

showing that respondent no.1 is independently earning any amount

and the amount so earned by her is sufficient not only to maintain

herself but also her daughter - respondent no.2 by maintaining the

same standard of living as that of the petitioner. There is nothing

in the impugned order and which has been pointed out to me by

the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which could be said to be

against the material available on record.

04] In these circumstances, I do not think that any ground

has been shown to me by the petitioner for making any

interference with the impugned order. There is no merit in the writ

petition and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following

order :

i. The writ petition stands dismissed with the observation

that the petitioner shall be granted adequate

opportunity to defend himself in the matter before the

maintenance application is finally disposed of.

ii. The amount deposited in this Court be permitted to be

withdrawn by the respondents.

iii. Absolute rule accordingly with no order as to costs.

(S.B. Shukre, J.)

*sdw