Sonu S/O Ramjeevan Shahu @ Pankaj ... vs Rakhi W/O Sonu Shahu @ Rakhi D/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13376 Bom

                                     1                                18 criwp662.22 (J).odt


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


            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2022


PETITIONER                 : Sonu S/o Ramjeevan Shahu,
                             alias Pankaj S/o Ramjeevan Shahu
                             Aged 33 years, Occupation: Nil,
                             R/o Plot No. 355, Bharat Nagar,
                             Kalamna Market Road, Nagpur.

                                           VERSUS

RESPONDENTS                 : 1] Sau. Rakhi W/o Sonu Shahu
                                 @ Rakhi D/o Radhesyam Shahu,
                                 Aged 30 years, Occu. Housewife,

                              2] Master Abhishek S/o Sonu Shahu,
                                 Aged 6 years, Occupation : Nil,
                                 through his mother Rakhi Sonu Shahu,
                                   R/o C/o Radheshyam Shahu,
                                   Plot No. 1128/F/256, Galli No.4,
                                   Near KDK College, Nandanwan, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. A. H. Jamal, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. B. H. Tekam, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 21, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2 18 criwp662.22 (J).odt

2. In this petition, the petitioner/husband has challenged the

order dated 25.05.2022 passed in Petition No. E-193/2019, whereby the

learned Judge of Family Court No.4, Nagpur has partly allowed the

application (Exh.6) filed by the respondents and awarded interim

maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent no.1/wife and @

Rs.3,000/- per moth to the respondent no.2/son.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is not financially well of. He is

jobless. He is assisting his father in grocery shop. The interim maintenance

quantified by the learned Judge of the Family Court is excessive and

exorbitant. The respondent no.1/wife has suppressed material facts. She

has independent source of income.

4. According to the respondents, the petitioner has avoided his

responsibility to maintain them. They have taken shelter at the house of the

parents of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has no source of income. The

petitioner is getting handsome income from the grocery shop, which is run

under the name and style as 'Pankaj Tel Bhandar' at Bharat Nagar, Kalamna

Market Road, Nagpur. According to the respondents, the interim

maintenance which is quantified by the learned Judge may not even satisfy

their requirements.

3 18 criwp662.22 (J).odt

5. I have heard Mr. A.H. Jamal, learned advocate for the

petitioner and Mr. B.H. Tekam, learned advocate for the respondents.

Perused the record and proceedings.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that considering

the financial position of the petitioner, the quantum of interim maintenance

awarded for respondent no.1/wife ought to have been Rs.3,000/- per month.

As far as interim maintenance awarded to the respondent no.2/son is

concerned, there seems to be no grievance. Learned advocate submitted that

on the application filed by respondent no.1 in the petition filed by the

petitioner/husband bearing Petition No. A-1149/2015 for divorce,

maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month was awarded during pendency of the

petition. It is submitted that however, for some reason or the other, the

petitioner withdrew the said petition on 27.7.2020. It is pointed out that

interim maintenance awarded as per impugned order is from the date of

application i.e. 18.04.2019. It is submitted that the period from 18.04.2019

to 27.07.2020, during which she was getting maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per

month was not taken into consideration. In the submission of the learned

advocate, subject to final decision of this Court in this petition, that amount

be adjusted against the quantum of interim maintenance in this proceeding.

4 18 criwp662.22 (J).odt

7. Learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the

interim maintenance quantified by the learned Judge of the Family Court is

just, proper and reasonable. Learned advocate submitted that respondent

nos.1 and 2 have taken shelter at the parental house of respondent no.1.

Learned advocate, in the alternative, submitted that if this Court is inclined

to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, then in that

event, the quantum of interim maintenance to the wife may not be less than

Rs.4,000/- per month.

8. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned

Judge has taken into consideration the material placed on record. The

learned Judge, on the basis of the material on record, came to the conclusion

that the petitioner is liable to pay interim maintenance. The learned Judge

while quantifying the interim maintenance has taken into consideration the

source of income of the petitioner. It is undisputed that the father of the

petitioner is 80 years old. The petitioner is looking after the grocery shop

under the name and style as 'Pankaj Tel Bhandar', situated at Bharat Nagar,

Kalamna Market Road, Nagpur. It has come on record that the petitioner is

B.E. (E & C). The respondent no.1 is a Commerce graduate. It, therefore,

goes without saying that the parties are educated. The parties being from

the higher strata of the educated society, must be used to a particular 5 18 criwp662.22 (J).odt

standard of living befitting to their status. The learned Judge has taken this

fact into consideration while quantifying the interim maintenance. The

material placed on record is not sufficient to accept the case of the petitioner

that respondent no.1 has independent source of income.

9. In the facts and circumstances, in my view, except modification

in the quantum of interim maintenance awarded to respondent no.1/wife, no

interference would be required in the impugned order. In my view, the

submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the respondents are

acceptable. It would be necessary to reduce the interim maintenance

awarded to the wife from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month.

There is no need to modify the interim maintenance awarded to the

respondent no.2/son. In my view, total interim maintenance to the

respondent nos.1 and 2 @ Rs.7,000/- per month would be just and proper.

To this extent, the order needs to be modified.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.

The order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Judge,

Family Court No.4, Nagpur below application (Exh.6) in Petition No. E-

193/2019, stands modified.

6 18 criwp662.22 (J).odt

The interim maintenance awarded to respondent no.1/wife is

reduced from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month. The interim

maintenance awarded to respondent no.2/son @ Rs.3,000/- per month is

maintained. Thus, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get total

interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month from the petitioner.

It is made clear that for the period from 18.04.2019 till

27.07.2020, the respondent no.1 would not be entitled to get interim

maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month, however, the petitioner would be

liable to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent

no.2/son from 18.04.2019.

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

( G. A. SANAP, J. ) Diwale

Digitally signed byPARAG PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE Signing Date:22.12.2022 15:21