Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 138 (BOM)

Mahadeo v. Neelawati @ Pradnya

2013-01-17

K.U.CHANDIWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner for allowance under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, DV Act), awarding allowance @ Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.2-wife and Rs.2,000/- each to the children, i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 5, is questioned. 3. The matrimonial relations between the couple having married before 13 years of issuing notice dated 10.08.2009, and birth of the children from such wedlock, is not in controversy. 4. Mr. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, read the notice and reply dated 17.8.2009, sent by Respondent No.1 to canvass that the petitioner, as a humble husband, was ready to cohabit with his wife, however, she did not join the company. Learned Counsel has raised doubts about award of maintenance in terms of Section 12 or Section 20 (d) of the DV Act, as according to him, when there is a specific provision under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. for maintenance, there could not be such allowance by the court. Evidence and the findings were also read. 5. Mr. Salve, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that Respondent Nos.2 and 3, by virtue of efflux of time, have become major and are college-going. In fact, they are unable to maintain and carry dream of their life. College education in the paltry sum of maintenance awarded in such escalated life standard is not possible. Learned Counsel further submits, that the net salary of the petitioner, who has since become a Senior Lecturer, is around Rs.70,000/-. 6. The objection in respect of applicability of provisions of the DV Act and award of maintenance on that count is incorrect. The very purport of Section 20(d) of the DV Act conceive that it is in addition to the award of maintenance, even in terms of Section 125 Cr. P.C. Section 36 of the said Act again clarifies the legal position, which lays, that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law. The message thereby conveyed is, there is no inhibition in law for a wife or children to stake claim for maintenance. 7. P.C. Section 36 of the said Act again clarifies the legal position, which lays, that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law. The message thereby conveyed is, there is no inhibition in law for a wife or children to stake claim for maintenance. 7. Turning to the aspect of the notice and the reply, the conduct of the petitioner has been demonstrated with dates and events by the Respondent No.1, as to how the petitioner had agreed for settlement, looking forward to the well-being of the children and thereafter turning down. How he felt his chances of promotions were defused and deflated by negatory approach of respondent No.1 's father. 8. Respondent No.1 unfortunately was branded to have illicit relations with named professor. She naturally could not bear such situation of humiliation and scornful conduct of the petitioner. Still looking to the well-being of the children, she continued her relations. However, there were no mending in the ways of the petitioner. Resultantly, she was forced to have separate residence. She was virtually driven away by the petitioner. 9. The evaluation of evidence carried by both the courts is in tune with the record. If any finding in respect of demand of Rs.3,00,000/- by the petitioner, having come forward, it was part of the petition, could not be reflected in the reply notice. Such non-reflection will not demure the case. 10. At Exhibit-30 before the Court, there was salary statement of the petitioner, showing his take home salary to be Rs. 27,832/-. Additionally, he holds agricultural property, which has been established. Leaving aside assertions of Mr. Salve that the husband has salary of Rs.70,000/-, the fact remains that the petitioner has no dependency except his parents. The composite award of Rs. 10,000/-, referred above, to the respondents, therefore, does not call for interference. Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Writ Petition dismissed.