Bombay High Court
Shri. Raymond Lancy Rodrigues vs Smt. Yogita W/O. Raymond Rodgrigues And ... on 31 January, 2018
Author: S. B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 479 of 2017
Petitioner : Raymond Lancy Rodrigues, aged about 66
years, resident of PO Shithady, near
Corporation bank, Main Road, Via
Modibidri, Manglore (Karnataka)
versus
Respondents : 1) Smt Yogita w/o Raymond Rodrigues,
aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
2) Marshall s/o Raymond Rodrigues, aged about 9 years, Occ: Student, being minor, through natural guardian-mother, respondent no. 1 Both residents of c/o Jaya Nilamwar, 46, Patil Nagar, Behind Naka No. 2, Nagpur Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for petitioner Shri N. M. Kolhe, Advocate for respondents Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 31st January 2018 Oral Judgment
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 02:12:41 ::: 2 finally by consent.
2. On going through the impugned order which only directs payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- in all to the respondents, I do not find at this stage that any patent illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur.
3. It is seen from the impugned order that although the opportunity was available to the petitioner to assist the Court by placing on record entire information relating to his pension and the salary, that opportunity was not availed of by him. Rather, the petitioner himself prevented his office from divulging that information to respondent no. 1. However, petitioner can well be granted said opportunity to effectively put up his defence, but till that time, the impugned order cannot be seen as manifestly illegal or erroneous. Even otherwise, grant of interim maintenance by the Family Court of Rs. 6000/- to both the respondents does not appear to be exorbitant given the facts that the present cost of living is too high and respondent no. 1 is not having any independent source of income.
4. In the result, I find no merit in the petition. Petition is ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 02:12:41 ::: 3 dismissed. Needless to say, there shall always be liberty to the petitioner to put up his defence properly in the present case by adducing necessary evidence, oral and documentary. Rule is discharged.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 02:12:41 :::