Bombay High Court
Amol S/O. Vasantrao Deshmukh vs Sau. Prachi W/O. Amol Deshmukh And ... on 3 August, 2018
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
0308WP1155.17-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRI. WRIT PETN. NO. 1155 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Amol S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh
(Ori.Respondent No.1/ Aged about 32 years, Occ. Labour
Appellant No.1 in R/o Laxmi Nagar, Malkapur,
Cri.Appeal No.135/2017) Tq. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Sau. Prachi W/o Amol Deshmukh,
(Ori.Applicant/ Aged about 26 years,
Respondent No.1 in Occ. Household work
Cri.Appeal No.135/2017) C/o.Shri Sanjay Ajabrao Deshmukh
R/o.Babhulgaon, Tq.& Dist.Akola.
2. Vasantrao S/o Ramrao Deshmukh,
(Ori.Respondent No.2/ Aged about 71 years, Occ.Retired,
Appellant No.2 in Cri. R/o Laxmi Nagar, Malkapur,
Appeal No.135/2017) Tq. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana.
3. Sau.Chaya W/o Vasantrao Deshmukh
(Ori.Respondent No.3/ Aged about 66 years, Occ. Nil,
Appellant No.3 in Cri. R/o Laxmi Nagar, Malkapur,
Appeal No.135/2017) Tq. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana.
4. Jitendra S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,
(Ori. Respondent No.4/ Aged about 36 years, Occ. Driver,
Appellant No.4 in Cri. R/o Laxmi Nagar, Malkapur,
Appeal No.135/2017) Tq. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana.
5. Rupesh S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,
(Ori.Respondent No.5/ Aged about 29 years, occ.Private
Appellant No.5 in Cri. Service,
Appeal No.135/2017) R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pune,
Tq. & Dist. Pune.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:28:26 :::
0308WP1155.17-Judgment 2/6
6. Aditya s/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,
(Ori.Respondent No.6/ Aged about 27 years,
Appellant No.6 in Cri. Occ. Private Service,
Appeal No.135/2017) R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pune,
Tq. & Dist. Pune.
7. Datta S/o Vasantrao Deshmukh,
(Ori. Respondent No.7/ Aged about 55 years,
Appellant No.7 in Cri. Occ. Agriculturist,
Appeal No.135/2017) R/o Morgaon Digras,
Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana.
8. Shekhar Vasantrao Deshmukh,
(Ori. Respondent No.8/ Aged about 46 years,
Appellant No.8 in Cri. Occ. Agriculturist,
Appeal No.135/2017) R/o Morgaon Digras,
Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana.
(Ori.Respondent No.2 9. State of Maharashtra
in Cri.Appeal Through D.G.P. Akola.
No.135/2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V. S. Giramkar, counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent Nos.1 to 8.
Ms G. Tiwari, APP for the respondent No.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 03.08.2018. O R A L J U D G M E N T ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:28:26 ::: 0308WP1155.17-Judgment 3/6
The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 14/11/2017 passed by the Sessions Court, Akola, whereby appeal filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the interim maintenance granted by the Court of Magistrate was enhanced from Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month, from the date of the application filed by respondent No.1 before the Magistrate.
2. In this writ petition, the contesting respondent No.1 was served and yet she chose not to appear before this court through counsel. This petition was listed for hearing after service on the contesting respondent No.1, on 02/07/2018 and 16/07/2018. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1.
3. In these circumstances, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal as the notice issued by this Court on 02/02/2018 clearly indicated that this writ petition would be disposed of at the stage of admission.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:28:26 ::: 0308WP1155.17-Judgment 4/6
4. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
5. Heard Mr. Giramkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He points out that a perusal of the impugned order dated 14/11/2017 would show that there is no reasoning given by the Sessions Court while granting enhancement of interim maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. In fact, the Sessions Court has recorded that although the contesting respondent No.1 had pleaded that the petitioner was working with Vodafone Company and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, not a single document nor any other evidence was placed on record to support the same. The Sessions Court noted that the 7/12 Extract placed on record showed that the father of the petitioner was owner of the agricultural land as well as house property. Yet, the Sessions Court thought it fit to double the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the Magistrate.
6. A perusal of the impugned order of the Sessions Court shows that there is no reason given as to why such a massive increase in quantum of interim maintenance was justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The documents on ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:28:26 ::: 0308WP1155.17-Judgment 5/6 record show that in the reply filed before the Magistrate, it was specifically stated by the petitioner that he had to resign from his job due to the matrimonial disputes and that despite these circumstances, he was ready to cohabit with the contesting respondent No.1 and to take up work that would be available for maintaining the respondent No.1 and the child.
7. The contesting respondent No.1 did not place on record before the Sessions Court any evidence to show why the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the Magistrate deserved to be increased. Yet, the quantum has been doubled by the Sessions Court in the impugned judgment and order. It is obviously not supported by any reason and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear before this Court. She has been appearing in the main application pending before the Magistrate filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that the main application is directed to be decided expeditiously, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:28:26 ::: 0308WP1155.17-Judgment 6/6
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14/11/2017 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2017 is set aside. The petitioner shall continue to pay amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as directed by the Magistrate towards interim maintenance to the respondent No.1 during pendency of Misc. Criminal Application No.2095 of 2016. The Magistrate is directed to dispose of the said application expeditiously and in any case within a period of one year from today.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:28:26 :::