← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/6189/2013dismissed

Mrs. Mohini Atul Dherange v. Shri. Atul Balshiram Dherange

2015-04-22Hon'Ble Smt. Justice R.P. Sondurbaldota2 pages

Chittewan 1/2 w.p. 6189-13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6189 OF 2013 Mrs. Mohini Atul Dherange Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, Occupation Nil, C/o. Shri Shyam Ramdas Sawant Residing at and post Landewadi, Taluka Ambegaon, District. Pune .. Petitioner.

(Orig.Respondent-wife) V/s Shri Atul Balshiram Dherange Aged about 34 years, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, occupation service.

Residing at Room No.3, 1st Floor, Saikrupa Building, Near Krusna Koyna Building, Sadanand Maali Chawl, Majiwade, Thane (West) 400 601 .. Respondent.

(Orig.Petitioner-husband) Mr. M.B. Kale, for Petitioner-wife.

Mr. D.S. Pagare, for Respondent-husband.

Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

Date : 22nd April, 2015 P.C.

1.

This petition challenges the order dated 22nd January, 2013 by which the Family Court, Pune decided the application for interim reliefs filed by the petitioner. By the

Chittewan 2/2 w.p. 6189-13 impugned order the respondent was directed to pay maintenance only to the minor daughter @ Rs.1,000/- per month and the petitioner was denied maintenance for herself. 2.

The reason set out in the order for denial of maintenance to the petitioner is that the petitioner has left the matrimonial home without reason. Thereafter, she did not respond to the attempts made by the respondent for reconciliation. The Court further noted that the petitioner has been earning money by taking tuitions and doing work as a beautician. The Court however, granted Rs.500/- as travelling expenses to the petitioner for her every attendance at the Court. 3.

Admittedly, the petitioner had not responded to the attempts at reconciliation by the respondent. Also she is better educated than the respondent. She is a graduate, whereas the respondent has studied only upto 12th Standard. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)