Prashant Rajendra Jaiswal vs Monika Prashant Jaiswal
2022 Latest Caselaw 8761 Bom

                                   1



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


            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 583 OF 2022

          Prashant Rajendra Jaiswal, Age about
          37, Occu : Business, R/o Murri Road,
          Bajpal Ward, Behind Weight Point,
          Gondia, Tq. & Dist. Gondia - 441 601
                                                   ... PETITIONER
                               VERSUS
          Monika Prashant Jaiswal, Age about
          27, Occp : Household, R/o C/o Smt.
          Shashi Jaiswal, Abhinav Colony,
          Yavatmal - 445001

                                                 ... RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________
       Shri Kushal Daga, Advocate a/w Shri Nishit Parate, Advocate
       for the petitioner.
       Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATED : 05/09/2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner - husband has challenged the order dated

26.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2021 by which the

Appellate Court has enhanced the rate of interim maintenance from

Rs.1,000/- per month to Rs.50,000/- per month. The short challenge is

to the enhancement of rate of interim maintenance. The petitioner

alleges that the Appellate Court without considering the facts, has

awarded interim maintenance at too excessive rate.

3. The respondent - wife has filed an application under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,

2005 (the D.V. Act) to the Magistrate claiming multiple reliefs. She has

also applied for grant of interim maintenance on which the learned

Magistrate without deliberating the income aspect, has awarded

interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Being

aggrieved, the wife has filed an appeal, in which the Appellate Court

has considered the several business concerns of the husband and

accordingly, fixed the quantum of interim maintenance as stated above.

4. It is the petitioner's contention that the Appellate Court has

erred in holding that the petitioner runs a business namely Jaiswal

Automobiles, Car Spa and Country Liquor shop. He would submit that

the petitioner's mother is running a business concern namely Jaiswal

Tyres, wherein the petitioner is serving on meagre salary of Rs.7,000/-

per month. It is submitted that though the other businesses like

Automobile, Car Spa, Repairing, Washing are carried in the same

tenement, however they are owned by the different family members.

The petitioner filed an affidavit to prima facie satisfy that the country

liquor shop is owned by his uncle in which he is neither a partner nor

any concern. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent has

pointed out that the petitioner himself has projected his monthly

income as Rs.1.5 lakhs, which was conveyed to the wife's mother

through What's App perhaps while sending marriage proposal. The

Appellate Court has mainly considered the said What's App message as

a concrete proof for income, and on that basis, fixed the interim

maintenance. Undeniably, the petitioner's mother is the owner of a

business concerns i.e. Jaiswal Tyres. It is informed that the petitioner is

the only son and therefore, even on prima facie basis it is not believable

to rely on a salary slip issued by the mother to her son. There are

variety of reasons to run businesses in the names of different family

members, however, as all the businesses are under one roof, it can be

said that the family is united and the petitioner is looking the business

concerns.

5. The petitioner might have projected lucrative financial

position at the time of marriage proposal, therefore, it cannot be

considered as a sure parameter to determine the income. I am

conscious of the fact that yet the evidence has to be led on the point of

income. The amount fixed by the Appellate Court is excessive. Having

regard to the nature of business the quantum has to be reduced to the

extent of Rs.20,000/- per month to maintain a right balance. The

learned Counsel for the petitioner also made a statement that the

petitioner is ready to handover a motor car bearing registration No.MH

35 AG-7551 to his wife as she is admittedly the owner of the car.

6. In that view of the matter, petition is partly allowed. The

impugned order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Appellate Court in

Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2021 is modified to the extent of reducing

interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month instead of

Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of application, which is from

02.03.2021. So also, the cost amount is reduced to the extent of

Rs.5,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner shall handover the motor

car bearing registration No. MH 35 AG-7551 to the respondent within

one week from today.

7. The petition stands disposed in above terms.

TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL (VINAY JOSHI, J.) 08.09.2022 17:17

Trupti