Bombay High Court
Prafulla S/O Dhudku Mahale vs Seema W/O Prafulla Mahale And Others on 8 August, 2024
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2024:BHC-AUG:17765
1 872.2023WP.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
925 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 872 OF 2023
PRAFULLA S/O DHUDKU MAHALE
VERSUS
SEEMA W/O PRAFULLA MAHALE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ghodke Siddhesh Subhashrao
Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr.Deshpande Shantanu A.
...
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 181 OF 2024
IN WP/872/2023
PRAFULLA S/O DHUDKU MAHALE
VERSUS
SEEMA W/O PRAFULLA MAHALE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ghodke Siddhesh Subhashrao
Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr.Deshpande Shantanu A.
...
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 8th August, 2024.
P.C.:
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment
and order dated 22nd May, 2023 passed below Exhibit-7 by Judge,
Family Court, Dhule in Petition E No. 12 of 2023.
2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
learned Judge, Family Court has granted interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- each per month to respondent nos.1 to 3 without any
reasonable ground. The learned counsel further submitted that
respondent no.1 herself has left the company of the petitioner. She
wants to live luxurious life, hence she does not want to stay with the
2 872.2023WP.odt
petitioner. The petitioner never ousted respondent no.1 from his house.
The petitioner is ready to pay maintenance to minor daughter and not
to respondent no.1 - wife and respondent no.2, who is majors
daughter. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent no.1
had not filed affidavit in respect of her assets and liabilities before the
Family Court, but these facts are not considered by the Judge, Family
Court, which is erroneous and requested to allow the writ petition.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 that
respondent no.1 stays with respondent nos.2 and 3. Respondent no.1
has no source of income. Respondent no.2 is taking education. She is
studying in 4th year of Engineering, whereas respondent no.3 is
studying in school. The learned counsel further submitted that there
was agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent no.1
that the petitioner would pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to the
respondents but the terms of said agreement is not followed by the
petitioner. As the respondents are unable to maintain herself, the
Family Court has passed the well reasoned order. No interference is
required in it. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent
no.1 has filed affidavit in respect of her assets and liabilities before the
Family Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the impugned
order passed by the Family Court.
3 872.2023WP.odt
5. While passing the order, the learned Judge, Family Court has
observed that the petitioner is doing the job as lecturer. As per
agreement took place between the petitioner and respondent no.1, the
petitioner should have paid the maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month
to respondent nos.1 to 3. On that ground, the Family Court has passed
the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in it. In my view, the
learned Judge, Family Court has passed the interim maintenance to
respondent nos.1 to 3 on the basis of mutual agreement executed
between the petitioner and respondent no.2. It is contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.1 has violated the
terms and conditions of the said agreement. To prove it evidence is
required. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner is saying that
respondent no.1 has herself deserted the company of the petitioner, to
prove it evidence is required. At the interim stage, this Court can not
consider the submissions of the petitioner. Though respondent no.2 is
major but she is taking education so she is unable to maintain herself,
hence being father it is responsibility of the petitioner to maintain
respondent no.2. If all the contentions of both the parties are kept
open, it would suffice and I pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The learned Judge, Family Court, Dhule is requested to dispose
of the maintenance application filed by respondent no.1 as early as
4 872.2023WP.odt
possible.
(iii) All the contentions of both the parties are kept open.
(iv) In view of the disposal of the writ petition itself, nothing survives
in Criminal Application No.181 of 2024, hence the same stands
disposed of.
[ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ]
sga
