Kamlesh Dayaldas Teckchandani v. Riya Kamlesh Teckchandani

WP5737_15.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5737 OF 2015 Kamlesh Dayaldas Teckchandani ...

Petitioner Vs.

Riya Kamlesh Teckchandani ...

Respondent Mr. Pankaj J. Das for Petitioner.

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2015 P.C. :

Not on Board. At the request of Mr. Das, learned Counsel for petitioner, taken up in the production Board. 2.

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan below exhibit 9 in Marriage Petition No.422 of 2014. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife and directed petitioner-husband to pay amount of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and towards expenses of proceeding from the date of the application till the disposal of the Petition. 3.

In support of this Petition, Mr. Das reiterated the submissions that were advanced in the trial Court. He submitted that the petitioner is earning salary of 4500 Dirhams including all monthly allowances. He is required to pay 2400 Dirhams per month as rent to his father including food and other expenses. He has to spend 500 Dirhams on petrol and servicing of his vehicle. He is required to spend around 1000 Dirhams for his personal expenses. Apart from that, respondent is an educated girl and is able to maintain herself. She is computer savvy and can earn by doing job without being dependent on husband. 1/2

WP5737_15.sxw 4.

By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as indicated earlier. While passing that order, the learned trial Judge noted in paragraph 8 that petitioner had taken wife on tour of Hongkong, Singapore, Maccau and China. In paragraph 11, the learned trial Judge noted that petitioner has bungalow in the vicinity of Ulhasnagar in the name of his mother besides the luxurious flat in United Arab Emirates. Petitioner and his family is residing in Dubai since last 16 years. Mr. Das also fairly pointed out that the petitioner is sleeping partner in the firm run by his father. Considering all these aspects as also having regard to the status of the petitioner-husband, I do not find that the learned trial Judge has committed any error while passing the impugned order. That apart, petitioner has also not complied the impugned order by paying maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application till date. 5.

In view thereof, no case is made for invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 2/2