Mr. Praveen Bhaginath Golhar v. Snehal Pravin Golhar

WP3309_17.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3309 OF 2017 Praveen Bhaginath Golhar ...

Petitioner Vs.

Snehal Pravin Golhar ...

Respondent Mr. Drupad S. Patil for Petitioner.

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE :

APRIL 12, 2017 P.C. :

Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner at length. 2.

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune below exhibit-6 in P.A.1253 of 2015. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directed petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from the date of application i.e. 02.12.2015 among other directions. The learned trial Judge did not consider prayer made by the respondent for grant of rent and gave liberty to her to file a separate application with proper justification about her address of residence. 3.

In support of this Petition, Mr. Patil submitted that respondentwife is highly qualified. She has done B.E. in Electronics, M.B.A. and course of Event Management. She had earlier worked for event company. He submitted that respondent, who is highly qualified, is not expected to sit idle at home and claim maintenance. He submitted that for the reasons recorded in paragraph 13, the learned trial Judge gave 1/2

WP3309_17.sxw liberty to the respondent-wife to file application with proper justification about her address of residence. In the event of respondent filing such application, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to contest that application on the ground, among others that maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month as awarded by the impugned order is sufficient and no separate order for amount towards residence be passed. 4.

I have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Patil. I have also perused the material on record. For the reasons recorded in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12, I do not find that the learned trial Judge has committed any error. The submission that respondent is highly qualified and therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance was considered in paragraph 10 of the impugned order. In the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has recorded a categoric finding that the net salary of petitioner is Rs.68,458/- and accordingly awarded maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month having regard to the fact that respondent wife is entitled to maintenance and maintain similar life style as of her husband. Hence, Petition fails and the same is dismissed. In case the respondent files separate application in terms of the liberty granted by the trial Court, all contentions of the petitioner are kept open. Order accordingly.

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