Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Gulabrao Vaidya vs Savita W/O Vijay Vaidya on 11 September, 2018
Author: Rohit B. Deo
Bench: R. B. Deo
1 wp6821.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6821 OF 2015
(Vijay s/o Gulabrao Vaidya ..vs.. Savita w/o Vijay Vaidya)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri P.S. Kadam, Counsel for the petitioner,
None for the respondent.
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 11-09-2018 Heard Shri P.S. Kadam, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Shri A.S. Ganu, learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.
3. This Court, by order dated 18-12-2015, issued notice for final disposal of the writ petition. The petition is, therefore, heard finally at the admission stage.
4. The challenge is to the order dated 18-2-2015 rendered by the learned District Judge-1, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal 13/2013, by and under which the application preferred by the respondent-wife for maintenance pendent lite and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed and the petitioner-husband is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:47:28 :::2 wp6821.15
5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband Shri P.S. Kadam, I have perused the material on record and the order impugned. The submission of the learned Counsel Shri P.S. Kadam is that since the wife was granted monthly interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in the proceedings instituted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the order impugned is unsustainable. The said submission is considered only for rejection.
6. The husband is working with Khadi and Village Industries Commission and the gross salary in 2015 was Rs.24,685/- per month. The learned District Judge noticed that there is no material on record to hold that the wife has any source of income. The maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the child granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in the proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is duly noted and considered in the order impugned. Be it noted, that considering the object and the rationale of the provision under which the wife is granted interim maintenance pending litigation, the fact that she was earlier granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month in the proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not vitiate the order. It is not that the District Judge was not aware that the wife was granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:47:28 ::: 3 wp6821.15 month in the proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The District Judge has noted and considered the grant of maintenance in earlier proceedings and after due application of mind to the earning capacity of the husband, has deemed it fit to direct the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the wife. I do not see any infirmity in the order impugned.
7. The petition is sans merit and is rejected.
JUDGE adgokar ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 00:47:28 :::