← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1626/2019allowed

Mrs. Arifa Mohammed Siddique Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader And ANR.

2022-12-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1626 OF 2019 Mrs.Arifa Mohammed Siddique Shaikh

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

---- Ms.Shivani S. Kadam for the Petitioner.

Mr.C.D. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.

Mr.K.H. Giri a/w Mr.Dhinika Jain, Mr.Gaurav Borse for Respondent No.2.

---- CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J.

by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2022.12.08 18:23:06 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE DATE : 6 DECEMBER 2022 P.C:- .

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2.

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has questioned the order passed by Family Court No.3, Mumbai ('Trial Court' for short) whereby rejecting the Application for granting interim maintenance to the Petitioner. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 got married on 14 February 2014 before the Marriage Officer. The Respondent No.2 has filed Petition for divorce under Section 25(a) of the Special Marriage act, 1954. The N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

Petitioner has filed an Interim Application for maintenance against Respondent No.2, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 4 October 2017. The Petitioner has preferred Review Application for maintenance. The said Review Application is rejected, which is under challenge.

3.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Trial Court has rejected the Interim Maintenance Application on the ground that the Petitioner is well qualified and having experience of doing job, she was having an opportunity to continue the job but she refused for the same. Hence, the Trial Court has rejected the Interim Maintenance Application, which is illegal and improper.

4.

The learned counsel further submit that the Petitioner is unable to maintain herself, she needs the maintenance amount for her daily expenses. Hence, requested to allow the Writ Petition.

5.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent is jobless. The Petitioner is more qualified then the Respondent. She herself refused to execute the bond with the company and left the job. The order passed by the Trial Court is legal and valid. N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

6.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

7.

Initially the trial Court has rejected the Interim Maintenance Application of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is equally qualified and having experience of doing job and earning handsome salary. The Petitioner has left the job of the Bioteach India Company on the pretext that the Company was asking her to sign the bond. She refused for the same. Now a days, taking such bond by Company not a uncommon practice and in routine course, such bonds are being executed by the employees. Hence, rejected the maintenance Application. In my view the observation of the learned Trial Court are hypothetical, rejection of the Interim Application mere on the ground that the Petitioner is well qualified and she would get job easily and earn handsome amount is not proper approach.

At the time of granting maintenance Court has to consider the present position of the Applicant. Whether she is doing job or jobless. If she gets any job, this fact can be pointed out to the concerned Court by the other side. But having high qualification and getting opportunity of the job cannot be the ground to reject the Interim Application. In that view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

(ii) The order passed by the Trial Court in Interim Application No.217-A/2017 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court is requested to decide the Interim Application No.217-A/2017 on its own merit, preferably within two months from the receipt of this order.

(iv) Rule is absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(S.G. DIGE, J.) N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4