Rajesh Brijlal Raut vs Mrs. Yogita Rajesh Raut
2022 Latest Caselaw 276 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 276 Bom
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2022

Bombay High Court

Rajesh Brijlal Raut vs Mrs. Yogita Rajesh Raut on 7 January, 2022

Bench: Avinash G. Gharote

                             1              208.WP.749-2016 JUDGMENT.odt




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

          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 749 OF 2016

     Rajesh Brijlal Raut
     Aged about 39 years, Occ- Service,
     R/o. 49, Santaji Society, Menghre
     Layout, Manish Nagar,
     Nagpur - 440 037.                           PETITIONER


       Versus


     Mrs. Yogita Rajesh Raut,
     Aged about 33 years, Occ- Household,
     R/o C/o Milind M. Kalar, Lane No.2,
     Flat No. 3, Surdham Apartments,
     Dhantoli, Nagpur - 440 012.                RESPONDENT



-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Atul Pande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.D. Hajare, Advocate for the Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------


                  CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                  DATED     : 7th JANUARY, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard Mr. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner/

husband and Mr. Hazare, learned counsel for the 2 208.WP.749-2016 JUDGMENT.odt

respondent/wife.

2. The petition challenges the order dated 18.07.2016

passed below Exh. 6, an application for interim maintenance

passed by the learned Family Court No. 3, Nagpur, in

proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. By the said order, the learned Family Court No. 3,

Nagpur, has directed payment of an amount of Rs. 20,000/-(Rs.

Twenty Thousand Only) per month as an interim maintenance

to the respondent from the date of application and Rs. 10,000/-

(Rs. Ten Thousand Only) to the respondent as litigation

expenses. Insofar as, the litigation expenses is concerned,

Mr. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, has no

grievance. He however submits, that the amount of

Rs. 20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousand Only), granted by the

learned Family Court No. 3, Nagpur, does not take into

consideration the amount of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. Four Thousand

Only) being paid by the petitioner to the respondent as house

rent under the Domestic Violence proceedings as well as the fact

that the petitioner, is separately taking care of the educational

expenses of the daughter, which as of now is Rs. 17,500/-(Rs.

3 208.WP.749-2016 JUDGMENT.odt

Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Only). He therefore submits,

that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousand Only)

awarded by the learned Family Court No. 3, Nagpur, is excessive

and the same needs to be scaled down. He invites my attention

to the order dated 27.10.2016, passed by this Court, whereby by

an interim order, this Court had while granting partial stay to

the effect and operation of the impugned order had directed,

that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per

month would be payable as maintenance to the respondent

from 16.09.2015, until further orders, which according to

Mr. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has been

regularly paid. He therefore submits, that the impugned order

needs to be modified accordingly.

3. Mr. Hazare, learned counsel for the

respondent/wife, vehemently objects and submits, that even the

rent being paid by the respondent for the premises occupied by

her has been enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. Six Thousand Only)

and considering the salary of the petitioner, the amount

awarded would be reasonable.

                                 4              208.WP.749-2016 JUDGMENT.odt




4.         Mr.      Pande,      learned      counsel           for            the

petitioner/husband, considering the above position fairly

submits, that the petitioner, would be willing to pay a

cumulative maintenance of Rs. 22,000/-(Rs. Twenty Two

Thousand Only) per month to the respondent, which would

include the amount of rent, of Rs. 6,000/-(Rs. Six Thousand

Only) being presently paid by the respondent for the premises

occupied by her, as claimed by Mr. Hazare, learned counsel for

the respondent/wife, which is over and above the expenses

which the petitioner is already making for the educational and

other expenses of his daughter. In my considered opinion, the

above offer is a reasonable one, which is accepted by

Mr. Hazare, learned counsel for the respondent/wife,