← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1025/2015dismissedrule discharged

Pradeep Vasantrao Badade (Koditkar) v. Ranjana Pradeep Badade (Koditkar)

2015-02-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1025 OF 2015 PRADEEP VASANTRAO BADADE (KODITKAR) PETITIONER

VERSUS

RANJANA PRADEEP BADADE (KODITKAR) RESPONDENT Mr.Sachin Awachar h/f Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 09/02/2015 PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/12/2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon, below Exh.47 in HMP No.50/2008.

2.

Grievance is that in RCA No.40/2005 and RCA No.13/2010, the learned Appeal Court, by its judgment dated 25/08/2014. has directed the Trial Court to dispose of HMP No.50/2008. The order of maintenance awarded in HMP No.31/2002 was to remain in force till disposal of the petitions.

3.

The respondent moved an application Exh.47 in HMP No.50/2008. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to

pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent as an interim maintenance from 30/09/2014. Grievance is that the maintenance order to the extent of Rs.1,500/- passed in HMP No.31/2002 precludes the Trial Court from passing the impugned order. The petitioner is ready to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent. 4.

Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, I do not find that the impugned order could be termed as perverse or erroneous. The petitioner, prima facie, has been held to have a flower shop in Shirdi. He owns a vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire, which is used as a Taxi and he is said to be earning about Rs.90,000/- per month. The order passed in HMP No.31/2002 is only to the extent of payment of Rs.1,500/- per month.

5.

The Trial Court has taken into account the two businesses of the petitioner and the fact that the respondent used to survive on Rs.1,500/- only. It is after assessing the monthly earnings of the petitioner that the Trial Court has found that he should pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent so that she could satisfy her frugal needs of day to day life.

6.

With due circumspection, I do not find that this petition deserves to be entertained. The impugned order, in my view, is sustainable and the petitioner is under an obligation to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent from 30/09/2014 till the decision in HMP No.50/2008.

7.

Writ petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)