Ashish Sheshrao Nighot vs Sharmita Ashish Nighot
2023 Latest Caselaw 1216 Bom

                                           7 cr wp 702.22.jud.odt
                                               1/7


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

       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.702 OF 2022



1.        Ashish Sheshrao Nighot
          Aged about 31 years,
          Occ: nil
          r/o Ambedkar Gate,
          Bhandarkar Layout,
          Girad Road, Umred,              ... PETITIONER
          Nagpur                            (Ori. Respondent)


                          // VERSUS //


1.        Sharmita Ashish Nighot
          Aged about 27 years,
          Occ: nil
          r/o plot no.88, Income Tax
          Colony Rana Pratap Nagar,      ... RESPONDENT
          Nagpur                            (Ori. Petitioner)

____________________________________________________
Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms S.H. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent.
____________________________________________________



CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATE:- 06/02/2023

ORAL JUDGMENT 7 cr wp 702.22.jud.odt

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

Perused the record and proceedings.

2. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India the petitioner has questioned the

correctness of the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the

learned Principal Judge Family Court, Nagpur in petition

No.E-157/2021 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to

partly allow the application at Exh.6 and quantified the

interim maintenance payable to the wife @ Rs.6,000/-

(Rs. Six Thousand Only) per month from the date of

application i.e. 17.03.2021.

3. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage

between the parties. The wife has stated in the petition filed

for maintenance that during her stay at the house of the

husband, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty. As a

result of harassment and cruelty, she has suffered blindness

and disability. She has been undergoing treatment for the

same. The respondent/wife is residing at the house of her 7 cr wp 702.22.jud.odt

parents. In the application, the respondent contended that

the petitioner is working in Panasonic Company as a

Marketing Manager and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. It

is also stated that he is having business of selling cement.

His profit from the said business is Rs.5,000/- per day. The

respondent contended in her application that she is unable

to maintain herself. She is unable to meet her medical

treatment expenses.

4. The husband/petitioner opposed the application.

It is his main contention that he lost his job on account of

criminal prosecution initiated on the report lodged by the

respondent. He is jobless. His father is no more. He has

admitted that they are dealing in the business of cement.

However, it is his contention that his mother is looking after

the business. It is his specific contention that he is jobless

and as such, he has no source of income.

5. Learned Judge of Family Court on the basis of

material placed on record found the respondent entitled to

get interim maintenance and quantified the same as above.

7 cr wp 702.22.jud.odt

The petitioner has questioned the correctness of this order

on multiple grounds.

6. I have heard Shri M.P. Kariya, learned Advocate

for the petitioner/husband and Ms S.H. Bhatia, learned

Advocate for the respondent/wife. Perused the record and

proceedings.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted

that the inference with regard to the monthly income of the

petitioner drawn by the learned Judge of the Family Court is

not at all justified. Learned Advocate submitted that

statement of assets and liability placed on record by the

petitioner, on the date of the order was not at all taken into

consideration. Learned Advocate submitted that petitioner

who is jobless cannot be asked to pay such hefty amount of

monthly interim maintenance.

8. Learned Advocate for the respondent/wife

submitted that respondent has suffered disability due to

beating, ill treatment and cruelty at the hands of the 7 cr wp 702.22.jud.odt

petitioner. Learned Advocate submitted that the amount of

interim maintenance quantified by the learned Judge of the

Court would satisfy the bear minimum needs of the

respondent. Learned Advocate further submitted that the

observations made by the learned Judge of the trial Court

with regard to the income from the business of cement shop

being available to the petitioner cannot be said to be either

illegal or unwarranted in the given set of facts.

9. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not stated

that he is not able bodied. It is not disputed that earlier he

was working in Panasonic Company as Sales Executive. It is

seen on perusal of record that he did not file the statement

of assets and liability with his reply. Record reveals that

statement of assets and liability was filed on the date of the

order. Learned Judge has observed in the order that both

parties failed to file the statements of assets and liability.

Perusal of petition would indicate that there is no positive

statement that the statement of the assets and liability was

placed on record before passing the order. The fact

therefore, remains that the statement of assets and liability 7 cr wp 702.22.jud.odt

was not taken into consideration for the above reasons.

10. The petitioner has admitted that they are having

the shop and dealing in the cement business. It is his case

that his mother is looking after the business. The learned

Judge disbelieved this statement. Learned Judge on the

basis of the material on record and on the basis of possible

judicial inference, in the factual situation came to the

conclusion that monthly income of the petitioner could not

be less than Rs.20,000/-.

11. In my view, the statement made by the petitioner

that they are having the shop and dealing in the cement

business by itself would be sufficient to maintain the order

passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. There is

no dispute that the respondent/wife is suffering from some

disability. The parties are blaming each other for the said

disability. In my view, this would be a issue of fact for

decision on the basis of evidence. The fact remains that at

this stage, there is no material on record to indicate that 7 cr wp 702.22.jud.odt

respondent/wife is having independent source of income.

The petitioner being husband is under an obligation to

maintain her. As can be seen from the maintenance

quantified by the learned Judge, it would be sufficient to

satisfy only the bear minimum needs of respondent/wife.

After going through the record and proceeding, I am of the

view that order passed by the learned Judge quantifying the

maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- (Rs. Six Thousand Only) is just,

proper and reasonable. It does not warrant any interference.

12. The Criminal Writ Petition, therefore, stands

dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

manisha

Signed By:MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE

Signing Date:08.02.2023 17:18