Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1038 (BOM)

Kaustubh Arvind Desai v. Archana Annaso Mali

2019-04-12

R.G.KETKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.G. KETKAR, J. 1. Not on Board. At the request of the respondent, taken up in the production Board. 2. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent-Archana Annaso Mali in person. 3. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 27.2.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaysingpur below Exhibits-14 and 54 in H.M.P. No. 96 of 2014. The respondent filed application Exhibit-14 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner-husband. The respondent filed application Exhibit-54 for continuation of the earlier application exhibit-14. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 12,000 per month to the respondent as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act from the date of filing of the application i.e. 21.2.2015. 4. The Petition was heard on 27.3.2019. On instructions, Mr. Deshmukh stated that petitioner will deposit entire arrears of interim maintenance as per the impugned order in this Court on or before 1.4.2019. Statement that the Trial Court has fixed the matter on 3.4.2019 was recorded. In view thereof, petitioner was directed to deposit entire arrears of interim maintenance in this Court as per the impugned order on or before 1.4.2019. The Petition was ordered to be listed for 'admission' on 11.4.2019. It was made clear that this Court has not stayed the proceedings pending before the Trial Court. Pendency of the Petition will not preclude the Trial Court from proceeding with the matter. All concerned parties, including the Trial Court, was directed to act upon the authenticated copy of that order. In pursuance thereof, petitioner has deposited Rs. 6,00,000 in this Court. 5. Due to paucity of time, the matter however could not reach on 11.4.2019. The respondent, therefore, requested the matter to be taken up in the production Board on the ground that-(i) she has no source of income, and (ii) she is unable to pay professional fees to her lawyers and therefore, she could not engage the Advocate even in the Trial Court. She, therefore, prayed for permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Deshmukh strenuously opposed the request for withdrawal of the amount. He has invited my attention to-(i) order dated 23.1.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur below Exhibit-5 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1051 of 2014. She, therefore, prayed for permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Deshmukh strenuously opposed the request for withdrawal of the amount. He has invited my attention to-(i) order dated 23.1.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur below Exhibit-5 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1051 of 2014. By that order, the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'D.V. Act') claiming reliefs of residential order, maintenance order, order of compensation and protection order under the D.V. Act. Aggrieved by this decision, respondent preferred appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur. By order dated 19.1.2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal. He submitted that while rejecting the application, the learned Magistrate noted that she is in the habit of extracting money from her former husband and maternal uncle of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the request made by the respondent for withdrawal of the amount may not be entertained. 7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that in paragraph 14, the learned Trial Judge noted that the petitioner had filed say at Exhibit-16. In that say, he specifically stated that on 29.6.2013, respondent performed marriage with him by blackmailing and cheating him. In order to save himself from the threatening, he married her. The learned Trial Judge also dealt with the contention of the petitioner that respondent had performed marriage with one Vijaysingh Bhosale and on the date of marriage with petitioner, her earlier marriage was subsisting. The learned Trial Judge prima facie did not accept the contention of the petitioner-husband that before performing marriage with him, respondent married Vijaysingh Bhosale. The learned Trial Judge also dealt with the contention of the petitioner that respondent had applied for maintenance under the D.V. Act and that was turned down. 8. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the income of the petitioner as also prima facie finding that marriage was solemnized between the parties, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 12,000 per month to the respondent as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act from the date of filing of the application i.e. 21.2.2015. 9. In pursuance of the order dated 27.3.2019, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 6,00,000 in this Court. 12,000 per month to the respondent as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act from the date of filing of the application i.e. 21.2.2015. 9. In pursuance of the order dated 27.3.2019, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 6,00,000 in this Court. In view thereof, in my opinion, ends of justice will be served if the respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000. Accordingly, the respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000 by making necessary application to the Deputy Registrar, Civil Department, Appellate Side, High Court, Bombay. The necessary details are as follows: Name : Archana Koustubh Desai Bank : Bank of Baroda Saving A/C No. : 41870100004355 IFSC CODE : BARBORAJARA MICR No. : 416012007 10. Upon receipt of the application for withdrawal, within one week, Registry shall disburse the amount to the respondent. 11. Mr. Deshmukh submitted that the learned Trial Judge has fixed the matter on 15.4.2019. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court. Pendency of this Petition will not preclude the Trial Court from proceeding with the matter. The learned Trial Judge will decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record and in accordance with law as also uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order and in this order. 13. Respondent assures that she will extend full co-operation before the Trial Court. 14. All parties, including the Registry and Trial Court, to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. 15. Stand over to 6.6.2019.