Bombay High Court
Bhupender Singh Lote S/O Late ... vs Vinit Kaur W/O Bhupender Singh ... on 30 June, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 214 OF 2022
Bhupender Singh Lote, s/o Late
Mahinder Singh Lote, R/o Apartment
No.302 (B-Wing), Majestic Heights, Plot
Nos. 102 & 103, Angulimal Nagar,
Nagpur - 440 017. Mobile
No.9970516638
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Vinit Kaur w/o Bhupender Singh
Lote, aged about 39 years,
Occupation : Housewife, Mobile
No.8329840113
2. Ms. Hargun Kaur Lote, d/o
Bhupender Singh Lote, aged
about 11 years, Occupaton -
Student, through matural
guardian mother R.No.1.
3. Master Parnit Singh Lote, s/o
Bhupender Singh Lote, aged
about 5 years, Occupation :
Student, through natural
2
guardian mother R.No.1.
R/o Quarter No. 228, Chokse
Colony, Kamptee Road, Nagpur -
440 014
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Mrs. Neelam A. Biala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for the respondents.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED. : 30.06.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of both the parties.
3. This petition is for challenging the interim order dated
20.09.2021 passed by the Family Court whereby interim
maintenance has been granted to the son and daughter. The
petitioner-husband challenges the impugned order by contending
that though the respondent-wife is highly qualified and having good
source of income, the Trial Court has awarded maintenance at
excessive rate. It is contended that though the petitioner-husband
was regularly paying maintenance and bearing additional expenses
of children still the maintenance has been awarded from the date of
application i.e. from 07.08.2019. Moreover, it is the contention that
the Trial Court while directing the petitioner-husband to pay an
educational expenses has loosely directed to pay allied expenses
without specifying the nature of such expenses.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-
wife and children has supported the impugned order. It is contended
that during pandemic period, the wife has lost her job and therefore,
she is not in a position to maintain her children. Precisely, it is
submitted that it is a matter of evidence to establish whether the
wife is potential to bear the expenses of children. Having regard to
the status of the petitioner, the wife is entitled to live in the same
condition.
5. Admittedly, the marriage took place on 08.10.2006 whilst
the couple has been separated on 09.05.2019. The wife has applied
to the Family Court for grant of maintenance for herself and her
children in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The main petition is pending in which the evidence is yet to be
recorded. While passing interim order, the Trial Court has considered
the material on prima facie basis, on which declined to grant
maintenance to the wife. The said partial rejection has not been
questioned by the wife, in this Court.
6. It reveals from the record that the husband is having
permanent job from which he is earning Rs.80,000/- per month.
Though it is urged that the wife is presently earning, at this stage
there are no documents to show that currently the wife is having
source of income. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the wife is running a Firm, however, the Trial Court
has already rejected to grant interim maintenance to the wife.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner being a father shoulders the
responsibility of bearing expenses of children at-least during interim
period.
7. Having regard to the salaried income of father, the
amount of interim maintenance is appropriate, which requires no
interference. Likewise, the husband (father) has to pay an
educational expenses but, in order to bring clarity, interference is
called to clarify the term 'allied' expenses.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
husband has time to time paid huge amount towards expenses of
children. It is contended that in view of the prior payment, the
interim maintenance shall be granted from the date of order.
Normally, the maintenance is awarded from the date of application
with the intention that the right accrues from the filing of an
application and the wife should be in a position to meet the
pendente lite expenses. However, the amount which has been
already paid by the husband for maintenance after the date of
application shall have to be considered while calculating arrears.
9. In view of that, impugned order is modified only to the
extent of deleting the word 'allied' expenses and further clarification
that the petitioner-husband shall pay interim maintenance as
ordered by the Family Court alongwith educational fees and
conveyance charges for the children.
10. The amount which is paid by the petitioner-husband
through recognized mode after 07.08.2019 shall be considered at the
time of calculating arrears. The petition shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL
01.07.2022 16:33
