← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/7812/2014dismissed

Shri. Ravindra Sadashiv Rane v. Sau Sandhya Ravindra Rane

2015-06-25Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Bhatkar2 pages

Sherla V.

wp.7812.2014_904.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7812 OF 2014 Shri Ravindra Sadashiv Rane ... Petitioner Vs.

Sau. Sandhya Ravindra Rane ... Respondent Mr.T.D. Deshmukh for the Petitioner Mr.Abhijit Desai i/b Ms.V.L. Maindad for Respondent CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE: JUNE 25, 2015 P.C.:

1.

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission.

2.

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 30.6.2014 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.3, Pune below exhibit 10 in Marriage Petition No.A-901 of 2012 directing the petitione husband to pay interim maintainance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent - wife from the date of filing of the application. 3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge of the Family Court has failed to consider the real monthly income of the petitioner husband and ought to have taken into account the financial position of the respondent - wife. He submitted that there are 1 / 2

wp.7812.2014_904.doc fixed deposits of huge amounts in the name of the respondent - wife and so also she is a Director of one company and running business. 4.

The learned Counsel for the respondent - wife submits that the respondent is not running any business. She is undergraduate. The petition is filed after 31 years of the married life by the petitioner-husband. 5.

Perused the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. It is a reasoned order. On query about the income of the petitionerhusband, the leaned Counsel relied on his income tax returns submitted of the F.Y. 2012-2013 which is Rs.12 lacs approximately per annum. This statement even if accepted as it is, I am of the view that granting 30% of this income to the wife, who has stayed with the petitioner for 31 years, cannot be said to be illegal. In my view therefore, no perversity is found with the impugned order.

6.

Petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner - husband shall deposit the arrears within one month in the Family Court and the respondent - wife is granted liberty to withdraw the money so deposited. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 2 / 2