Bombay High Court
Dharmendra S/O Puranraoji Jadhav vs Pravina W/O Dharmendra Jadhav ... on 9 January, 2023
Bench: G. A. Sanap
Judgment 1 7.wp.689.2022 judg.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (WP) NO.689 OF 2022
Dharmendra S/o. Puranraoji Jadhav,
Aged : 43 Yrs., Occ.: Private Service,
R/o. P.T.S. Quarter No.100, Chandan
Nagar, Nagpur .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Sau Pravina W/o. Dharmendra Jadhav
(Maiden name Ku. Pravina D/o. Rajkumarji
Tagde), Aged about 28 Yrs.,
Occu.: Household
2. Master Daksha S/o. Dharmendra Jadhav,
Aged about 6 Yrs., Occ. Education,
Being Minor, through natural guardian
mother respondent No.1,
Both R/o. C/o. Sunanda Dharmapal
Gaurkar, R/o. Plot No. 224, Untkhana,
Near Medical Chowk, Nagpur .... RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________
Mr A. M. Balpande, Advocate (appnt.) for the petitioner
Mr. Vivek Awchat, Advocate (appnt.) for the respondents
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at
admission stage by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
Judgment 2 7.wp.689.2022 judg.odt
3. The petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent No.1,
has challenged the order dated 30.03.2022, passed by the learned
Principal Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge
quantified the interim maintenance @ of Rs.3000/- per month for
respondent No.1 and @ of Rs.2000/- per month for the respondent
No.2.
4. The petitioner and respondent No.1 got married on
04.05.2014 at Nagpur. They are blessed with son i.e. respondent No.2.
It is the case of the respondent No.1 that at the time of their marriage,
the petitioner was 14 years elder than her. The petitioner suppressed this
fact from her. When she came to know about this fact and questioned
the petitioner, she was subjected to ill-treatment and beaten at the hands
of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has been residing
separately from the petitioner with her son/respondent No.2. In the
application, made for interim maintenance, the respondent No.1 has
stated that monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.40,000/-. He is getting
rent from the house. No one, other than the respondents is depend on
him. The respondent No.1, therefore, claimed the interim maintenance
@ of Rs.10,000/- for her and Rs.5,000/- for respondent No.2.
Judgment 3 7.wp.689.2022 judg.odt
5. The petitioner opposed the application for interim
maintenance. According to the petitioner, he is working as a 'worker' in
Furniture Shop. His monthly salary is Rs.5,000/-. His father has retired
from MSRTC and he is not receiving any pension. His father is
dependent on him. The son/respondent No.1 is residing with him. He
has admitted the son in Kendriya Vidyalay. He is bearing all his
expenses.
6. Learned Judge of the Family Court on the basis of the
material available on record partly allowed the application for interim
maintenance and quantified the interim maintenance @ of Rs.3000/- per
month for respondent No.1-wife and @ of Rs.2000/- per month for son-
respondent No.2. The petitioner has questioned the correctness of this
order as well as the quantum of maintenance on multiple grounds.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner
has admitted his son/respondent No.2 in Kendriya Vidyalay and bearing
all his expenses. Learned Advocate, therefore, submits that the order of
interim maintenance vis-a-vis the son/respondent No.2 needs to be set
aside. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that under the
pretext of taking admission in Kendriya Vidyalay, the petitioner procured
Judgment 4 7.wp.689.2022 judg.odt
the custody of the respondent No.2 and now has refused to return back
the custody of son/respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. Learned
Advocate for the respondent No.1, in short, admits that as on date the
custody of the respondent No.2/son is with the petitioner.
8. It is to be noted that, at this stage, in this petition, no
material has been placed on record to substantiate the stand of the
respondent No.1 that under the pretext of giving admission the
petitioner procured the custody of the respondent No.2 from respondent
No.1. Learned Advocate in all fairness submits that the wife/respondent
No.1 is proposing to file an application before the Family Court for
getting back the custody of the son. The wife would be at liberty to
apply before the Family Court for custody. However, this aspect fortifies
the contention of the petitioner that he has admitted the son/respondent
No.2 in Kendriya Vidyalay and as on date bearing all the expenses of
son. In my view, therefore, subject to keeping right of wife intact to
apply for custody this order granting interim maintenance @ of
Rs.2000/- per month to the son/respondent No.2 needs to be set aside.
9. Learned Judge of the Family Court on the basis of the
material available on record quantified interim maintenance for
Judgment 5 7.wp.689.2022 judg.odt
respondent No.1 @ of Rs.3,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 has
not challenged this part of the order. On going through the order passed
by the learned Judge of the Family Court, I am satisfied that the learned
Judge of the Family Court has taken all the facts and material available on
record into consideration while quantifying the interim maintenance
payable to the wife/respondent No.1. All the facts namely the income of
the parties, the strata of the society from which the parties hail and the
responsibility of the petitioner to maintain the wife have been taken into
consideration. On consideration of the material afresh, I am of the view
that as far as this part of the order is concerned no interference is
warranted.
10. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 made a
grievance that in terms of the order passed by this Court dated
04.10.2022, the petitioner has deposited the interim maintenance from
that date only. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that
the petitioner is in the arrears of maintenance. It is pertinent to note that
on account of stay granted by this Court on 04.10.2022, the respondent
No.1 was not able to apply for execution. It is to be noted that with the
disposal of this petition the stay would be automatically vacated. The
respondent No.1 would, therefore, be entitled to apply for execution of
Judgment 6 7.wp.689.2022 judg.odt
other part of the order. It is made clear that as and when such
application for execution of order is made or if it is already made, the
learned Judge of the Family Court shall dispose of the same according to
law at the earliest to the extent of wife. Hence, following order.
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly allowed.
ii. The order of interim maintenance granted in
favour of the son/respondent No.2 is quashed and set
aside.
iii. The order of interim maintenance @ of Rs.3000/-
granted in favour of wife stands confirmed.
iv. The fees of Rs.7,000/- each be paid to learned
appointed advocates for petitioner and respondents, as
remuneration.
v. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No
costs.
( G. A. SANAP, J.)
Namrata
Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:11.01.2023 18:42
