Rajesh Gobindram Chhoda v. Karishma Rajesh Chhoda

BDP-SPS Bharat D.

Pandit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by Bharat D.

Pandit Date:

2020.01.29 16:04:28 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10854 OF 2019 Rajesh Gobindram Chhoda .... Petitioner.

V/s Karishma Rajesh Chhoda .... Responent.

--- Ms. Sujata Chaudhari i/b K. Juris for the Petitioner. Ms. Ishika Tolani a/w Mr. Navin P. Sachanandani for the Respondent. ---- CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE: JANUARY 24, 2020 P.C.:- 1] In proceedings initiated under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce at the behest of Respondent-wife read with provisions of Domestic Violence Act, in exercise of powers under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act coupled with the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, Application came to be moved by Respondent-wife, praying for directions to the Petitioner-husband to pay actual school fees, bus fees, cost of school books, uniform and stationery as mentioned in the break up of expenses furnished before the court, which came to be allowed 1/3

by the impugned order dated 3/9/2019.

2] Challenge to the said order is based on following grounds viz (a) that Respondent-wife is gainfully employed and (b) that the Petitioner-husband is not permitted to have access to both daughters and court should have weighed equity in favour of the Petitionerhusband, particularly when Respondent-wife is custodian of both the daughters.

3] Fact remains that Petitioner-husband is working as commercial pilot. Apart from above, fact remains that Respondent-wife has not prayed any maintenance for herself but has given break up expenses incurred towards education of daughters and has prayed for payment of actual educational expenses.

4] The court below, in my opinion, is justified in ordering payment of school fees and other expenses, particularly when Petitioner-father is gainfully employed and he has every responsibility to maintain his kids. Keeping the option open to Petitioner-husband to raise a plea for access of daughters before the appropriate court, in my opinion no 2/3

interference is called for in extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition fails and same stands dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 3/3