Jayesh Tushar More vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10731 Bom

                                         1              1029-wp 9997-2015.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 9997 OF 2015

 Jayesh Tushar More                                                  .. Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and another                                .. Respondents

 Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
 Mr. A. D. Soman, Advocate h/f Mr. D. V. Soman, Advocate for
 Respondent No. 2.

                                CORAM :       S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                              R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED : 10th AUGUST, 2021.

PER COURT:-

. The petitioner is assailing the order passed by the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad thereby granting interim

maintenance to the daughters of Rs. 3000/- per month (aggregate Rs.

6000/- per month) and further directing the petitioner to pay the

school fees, bus fees if any, for books, uniforms, shoes, bag, water bottle

and other miscellaneous expenses of the daughters, on production of

the actual bills by the respondent No. 2, till the hearing and final

disposal of the main petition.

2. Mr. Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is unemployed as on the date. Because of various complaints

1 of 4

2 1029-wp 9997-2015.odt

filed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner had to leave his service

and he is unemployed. According to the learned counsel, the

respondent No. 2 is in service and earning handsome salary per month.

These aspects ought to have been considered by the Family Court. The

learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready to cohabit

with respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is avoiding the petitioner.

The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not given

custody of the daughters by the respondent No. 2. If the custody of the

daughters is given to the petitioner, the petitioner would maintain the

daughters. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex

Court in a case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of

2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020.

3. Mr. Biradar, learned counsel further submits that the application

for custody of the daughters is withdrawn by the petitioner on the say

of respondent No. 2.

4. Mr. Soman, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that

the application filed by the petitioner for custody of daughters is

pending. The petitioner has got landed properties. The shop at

Chhavani from which the petitioner receive rent. The petitioner has 35

acres of land and the petitioner is working as H.R. with M.G.M.

Hospital. All theses aspects are rightly considered.

                                                                             2 of 4





                                        3                 1029-wp 9997-2015.odt

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

counsel for respective parties.

6. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the father

has to maintain the daughters. The issue in the present matter is not

regarding payment of maintenance to the wife. The issue is about

maintenance to the daughters. The petitioner being father cannot run

away from his responsibility and duty to maintain the daughters.

7. The order is passed against the petitioner to pay maintenance of

Rs. 3000/- per month to the daughters and also the educational

expenses. The Apex Court in a case of Rajnesh (supra) has observed

thus :

(d) Maintenance of minor children The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extra-curricular / coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.

Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.

                                                                                  3 of 4





                                     4               1029-wp 9997-2015.odt

8. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 both are contending that

today they are without job. The petitioner contends that the respondent

No. 2 is still serving and the respondent No. 2 contends that she was

employed temporarily and now she is not in service.

9. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to disturb the order of the

Family Court to the extent directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3000/- per

month for each daughter i.e. in aggregate Rs. 6000/- per month

towards the maintenance and other expenses.

10. We would only modify clause (04) of the order dated 21.08.2015

in Pet. No. D-9/2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Aurangabad. The petitioner is directed to pay all the school expenses.

We would modify the order to the extent that the petitioner and

respondent No. 2 shall bear equally the educational expenses as

detailed in clause (04) of the impugned operative order. Clause 1 to 3

of the impugned operative order remains the same and are upheld.

11. With the aforesaid modification to the extent of clause (04) as

detailed above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

 ( R. N. LADDHA )                              ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
      JUDGE                                              JUDGE



 P.S.B.


                                                                              4 of 4