Bombay High Court
Ujwala Ramesh Anantwar vs Ramesh Govindrao Anantwar on 14 January, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 921-WP-516-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 WRIT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2021
UJWALA W/O RAMESH ANANTWAR
VERSUS
RAMESH S/O GOVINDRAO ANANTWAR
......
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Gandhi Amol S.
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 14TH JANUARY, 2021
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-wife at
length.
2. Initially, petition no. A385 of 2014 for divorce filed by
the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty came to be
allowed. However, the said order being ex-parte, the Division
Bench of this Court has remanded the matter. Thereafter, the
said petition No. A385 of 2014 was re-opened and it was
contested by both sides. By judgment and order dated
09.10.2017, the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed
the petition A385 of 2014 and granted the decree of divorce
vre/-
2 921-WP-516-2021.odt
in favour of the respondent-husband. Operative part of the
order dated 09.10.2017 is reproduced as under:
"1. This petition is allowed.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and
respondent solemnised on 02.06.2006 is hereby
dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act with effect
from the date of this order i.e. 09/10.2017.
3. Petitioner is ordered to pay permanent alimony
@ Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent from
the date of this order until she remarries or until
she is proved to be capable of maintaining
herself.
4. Petitioner is restrained from interfering into the
possession of respondent over his house situated
in Hudco, Nanded, except in accordance with
law.
5. .....
6. .....
7. ......"
3. Thus, the petitioner-wife was granted permanent
alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date
of the order until she remarries or until she is proved to be
capable of maintaining herself. In the same order, the Family
Court restrained the respondent-husband from interfering
into the possession of the petitioner-wife over his house
situated in Hudco, Nanded, except in accordance with law.
vre/-
3 921-WP-516-2021.odt
4. It further appears that being aggrieved by the same,
particularly to the extent of clause 4, the respondent-
husband preferred Family Court Appeal No. 60 of 2017 and
the Division Bench of this Court has modified the said clause
no. 4 by restraining the respondent-husband from interfering
in the possession of the petitioner-wife over his house
situated in Hudco, Nanded for a period of six months, except
in accordance with law, from the date of the order. The
appeal was thus partly allowed and disposed off accordingly.
The rest of the judgment and order passed by the Family
Court stood confirmed.
5. After expiry of the said period of six months, the
respondent-husband has filed Regular Darkhast No. 8 of
2019. Learned Judge of the Family Court, Nanded, by the
impugned order dated 29.01.2020, directed the petitioner-
wife to vacate the house of the respondent-husband situated
at ND-42/P/2-40/7 Hudco, Nanded on or before
01.04.2020.
vre/-
4 921-WP-516-2021.odt
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife
vehemently submitted about the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nanded below Exhibit 36 in P.W.D.V.A.
No. 44 of 2016 under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, thereby
restraining the respondent-husband from committing any act
of domestic violence against the petitioner-wife and also
restraining him from dispossessing her from the shared
household, in my considered opinion, the said order passed
by the Magistrate on 08.11.2017 below Exhibit 36 does not
survive in the light of the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court dated 05.07.2018 in Family
Court Appeal No. 60 of 2017.
7. In view of the above, I find no fault in the order passed
by the executing court. There no substance in this Writ
Petition. The Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
( V. K. JADHAV, J. )
vre/-
