Prasad Rajendra Lokhande vs Renuka Prasad Lokhande
2021 Latest Caselaw 16039 Bom

                                      1                     930-WP-12536-21 J.odt




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   930 WRIT PETITION NO.12536 OF 2021

Prasad s/o Rajendra Lokhande,
Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o : A-15, "Suprabha"
Plot No. 35, Parijat Nagar,
CIDCO NS 4 Aurangabad,                                    ...Petitioner.
District Aurangabad.                                Original respondent

Versus

Renuka w/o Prasad Lokhande
Age 29 years, Occ. Not known,
R/o c/o Jagannath Ramakant
Parlikar Bank Colony, In front
of Ahilyadevi Kanya Vidyalaya,                        ...Respondent
Basmat, District Hingoli.                           Original petitioner

                                       ...
          Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ashwin B. Sakolkar h/f.
                                    Mr.V. G. Sakolkar
             Advocate for Respondent : Mr. D. S. Jagatkar
                                    ...

                               CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 18.11.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner who is

husband of the respondent. She has fled a proceeding for

restitution of conjugal rights under Hindu Marriage Act. He is

aggrieved by an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act whereby he has been directed to pay her interim alimony

at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month.

2 930-WP-12536-21 J.odt

2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that

inspite of an emphatic direction of the Supreme Court in the

matter of Rajnesh Versus Neha and another, (2021) 2

Supreme Court Cases 324, the alimony has been fied

without compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court.

There ought to have been appropriate enquiry in the light of

the observations and the directions of the Supreme Court

before taking a decision in respect of alimony pendent lite.

3. Learned Advocate would submit that the petitioner

though has been earning Rs. 96,000/- per month, even the

respondent has a source of income and earns more than Rs.

2,50,000/- per month.

4. Needless to state that directions of the Supreme Court in

the matter of Rajnesh (supra) have to be followed by

everybody. It is also the matter of record that no such

afdavits were fled before the Trial Court persuant to the

directions in paragraph No.78.

5. However, submissions of the learned Advocate for the

petitioner insisting for such compliance with the direction of

the Supreme Court now, is clearly an afterthought. He himself

3 930-WP-12536-21 J.odt

could have fled an afdavit on the lines as is required by the

Supreme Court. In the absence of such afdavit on behalf of

either side, by the impugned order alimony has been fied at

the rate of Rs. 8,000/-. per month.

6. According to the petitioner his income is Rs. 96,000/- per

month. In my considered view the interim alimony granted by

the trial Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be

perverse, arbitrary or eihorbitant.

7. Even if it is a matter of record that the alimony has been

fied without insisting for the afdavits, in the light of the

direction of the Supreme Court, this Court, in the facts and

circumstances, would not cause any interference in the order

under challenge.

8. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.

( MANGESH S. PATIL ) JUDGE

shp/-