Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 56 (BOM)

Atul v. Pragya

2023-01-04

G.A.SANAP

body2023
JUDGMENT G. A. Sanap, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur below Exh. 6 in petition No.E-635/2018, whereby Learned Judge quantified the interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/-each for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner and respondent No.1 got married on 20.11.2012. Both are qualified engineers. The couple is blessed with a male child. It is the case of wife i.e. respondent No.1 that after birth of son, there was drastic change in the behavior of petitioner and his family members. The petitioner and his family members drove her out of matrimonial house. The respondent, therefore, filed proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'D.V. Act'). She also filed proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent No.1 filed an application at Exh.-6 for interim maintenance. In terms of the direction of the Family Court dated 07.01.2021 she filed her affidavit of assets and liabilities. 4. The application for interim maintenance at Exh. 6 was opposed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the application for interim maintenance was not at all maintainable. In a D.V. Act proceeding, the interim maintenance @ of Rs.5,000/-each was granted to the respondents. Besides Rs.3,000/- per month was granted towards the rent to the respondent No.1. The petitioner denied the quantum of his salary asserted by the respondents. According to him, in view of the order of interim maintenance awarded in a D.V. Act proceeding, the respondents are not entitled to get the interim maintenance in 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding. He could not file the statement of assets and liabilities and the relevant documents. His prayer for time to file the same came to be rejected without recording proper reasons. Child was suffering from blood cancer. He spent near about Rs.17 Lakhs on his treatment. He has borrowed the loan for the treatment of his son. The quantum of the interim maintenance is not just, proper and reasonable. 5. Learned Principal Judge of the Family Court granted reasonable opportunities of hearing to the parties and on the basis of material placed on record, partly allowed the application for interim maintenance and quantified the interim maintenance as above. The quantum of the interim maintenance is not just, proper and reasonable. 5. Learned Principal Judge of the Family Court granted reasonable opportunities of hearing to the parties and on the basis of material placed on record, partly allowed the application for interim maintenance and quantified the interim maintenance as above. This order is challenged in this writ petition. 6. I have heard learned Advocates for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the respondents. Perused the record and proceedings. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that separate maintenance can be awarded in a D.V. Act proceeding as well as in the proceeding initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is undisputed that in a D.V. Act proceeding, the interim maintenance was granted in favour of the respondents. In this proceeding, the parties were directed to file the statement of assets and liabilities on 07.01.2021. The respondent No.1-wife filed her statement of assets and liabilities on 23.10.2021. The petitioner failed to comply this order. The perusal of the Rozanama placed on record would show that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file the statement of assets and liabilities. The petitioner as can be seen from the order dated 01.04.2022 took almost one year for filing the statement of the assets and liabilities. The perusal of the Rozanama would indicate that the matter was posted for final hearing on the application for interim maintenance on more than one dates. It, therefore, goes without saying that the petitioner was not taken by surprise. He had understanding and knowledge that matter could be heard and decided on the basis of available record. In my view, therefore, the grievance made on this count is not at all sustainable. 8. Learned Judge, on the basis of the material placed on record, quantified interim maintenance. It is to be noted that after this order, the petitioner has filed the statement of assets and liabilities and other documents. In the statement of assets and liabilities accompanied with the salary slips, the monthly salary is stated to be Rs.97,000/-. The net salary is Rs.73,702/-. On the date of the order, the relevant documents of the treatment of the son and the expenses incurred on the treatment by the petitioner were not placed on record. In the statement of assets and liabilities accompanied with the salary slips, the monthly salary is stated to be Rs.97,000/-. The net salary is Rs.73,702/-. On the date of the order, the relevant documents of the treatment of the son and the expenses incurred on the treatment by the petitioner were not placed on record. It is true that the wife has admitted that the husband has incurred the expenses for the treatment of son in National Cancer Institute, Nagpur. It is the case of the petitioner that he has spent around Rs.17 lakhs for treatment of his son. The documents placed on record subsequently do not substantiate this statement. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the financial position of the parties, their qualification and the standard of living to which they are accustomed to. The respondents had claimed interim maintenance @ of Rs.50,000/- each. However, on the basis of available material, the learned Judge was not inclined to grant the interim maintenance at the said rate. The learned Judge, on evaluation of the material placed on record and also the fact that the interim maintenance was already granted in a D.V. Act proceeding quantified the maintenance as above. 9. In my view, even on merits, I do not find any substance in the submission. The quantum of the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Judge is just, proper and reasonable. The respondent No.1 with child is residing at the house of her parents. The petitioner is working in Larsen and Toubro Company at Pune. They are qualified engineers. No material has been placed on record by the petitioner with regard to the independent income of the wife-respondent No.1. In my view, therefore, on all counts, the order is perfectly within the parameters of the law. No interference is, therefore, warranted. 10. It is to be noted that the pleadings in both the proceedings are complete. I am informed across the bar by learned Advocates of the parties, that now the proceedings are listed for evidence. The parties can take steps to lead the evidence and see that the matter is dispose of expeditiously. 11. Learned Advocates for both the parties agree that they would take all such necessary steps to see that the evidence is led before the trial Court at the earliest. 12. In view of this, petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.