Bombay High Court
Sheetal W/O. Sikandar @ Sahil Wasnik vs Sikandar @ Sahil Dadarao Wasnik on 24 April, 2018
Author: Rohit B. Deo
Bench: Rohit B. Deo
905Criminal WP59of2018J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.59 OF 2018
PETITIONER Sheetal w/o Sikandar @ Sahil
Wasnik, Aged about 32 years,
Occu: Household, R/o c/o Manda
Ashok Meshram, 64, Sainath Nagar,
Azad Hind Nagar, Society, Bhamti
Road, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT Sikandar @ Sahil Dadarao Wasnik,
Aged about 36 years, Occupation:
Pvt.Service and Business,
R/o Pandharabodi, New Police
Chowki, Baji Prabhu Nagar Road,
Ram Nagar, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S. Nerkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.A. Khobragade and Shri J.M. Shamkuwar,
Advocates for the respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE: 24 th
APRIL, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:26:53 ::: 905Criminal WP59of2018J.odt 2 the parties.
2] The petitioner is assailing order dated 27-11-2017 passed by the learned Judge Family Court 2, Nagpur rejecting the application for grant of interim maintenance. 3] The application moved by the petitioner-wife seeking interim maintenance is rejected on the ground that she is granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month by the 24 th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur in M.C.A. 3033/2016, which proceedings are instituted under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred "D.V. Act").
4] Perusal of the operative part of the order on which the rejection impugned is predicated reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directed the respondent-husband to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of adducing evidence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the evidence was adduced in January- 2018 and the first installment of the interim maintenance granted in the Domestic Violence proceeding is paid in March-2018. The ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:26:53 ::: 905Criminal WP59of2018J.odt 3 learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the even after the interim maintenance granted by the Court under the D.V. proceedings is factored in, the said amount is not sufficient to take care of her basic needs. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that concededly the assured monthly income of the respondent, as is discernible from the extracts of the bank accounts placed on record, is more than Rs. 16,000/- per month. Perusal of the bank account would reveal, that there are some entries of amount received from the employer in addition to the monthly salary. Shri Shyamkuwar, learned Counsel for the respondent states that the said entries represent the amount received by the respondent-husband in lieu of leave. Be that as it may, indubitably the monthly income of the respondent-husband is Rs. 16,200/- to Rs. 16,500/- per month. The deductions, to which my attention is invited by the learned Counsel for the respondent, are the installments of loan, which cannot be excluded for determining the monthly income of the respondent- husband, for the purposes of grant of interim maintenance. 5] I have perused the affidavit in reply, the counter affidavit of the petitioner and the surrejoinder to the said counter affidavit, and having done so, in my considered opinion, the ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:26:53 ::: 905Criminal WP59of2018J.odt 4 learned Judge of the Family Court fell in error in predicating the rejection only on the ground that the petitioner-wife is granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- in the D.V. proceeding. 6] In my considered view, in the factual matrix obtaining, and considering that the respondent-husband has the responsibility of looking after his aged mother, interim maintenance of 1/4th of the salary of the petitioner-husband, would subserve the ends of justice.
7] The order impugned is quashed and set aside. The respondent-husband is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month in addition to the interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- granted in the D.V. proceeding, to the petitioner-wife from the date of the impugned order. The arrears shall be paid within a month.
8] The petition is allowed, in the afore stated terms JUDGE RKN ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:26:53 :::