Sachin Haribhau Bidkar v. Ashwini Sachin Bidkar

996wp1455.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 996 WRIT PETITION NO. 1455 OF 2023 SACHIN HARIBHAU BIDKAR

VERSUS

ASHWINI SACHIN BIDKAR ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G.V. Wani h/f Mr. Pande Dipesh D. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. C. B. Chaudhari ...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

DATE : 16.12.2025 PER COURT :

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2.

By way of this petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 19.11.2022 passed below Exhibit 27 by Family Court Jalgaon, in Petition A-50 of 2021, whereby the Family Court Jalgaon directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- to respondent from the date of filing of the application till disposal of the Divorce Petition. 3.

Learned Counsel Mr. Wani, for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to pay such huge amount as he has to pay Rs. 82,000/- towards EMI and from the remaining amount it is very difficult for him to pay Rs. 50,000/- p.m. as maintenance. He further submits that while passing the interim order the Family Court has not recorded any finding and without any reason allowed the application by simply directing the petitioner to pay such huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance.

4.

The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr.Chaudhari

996wp1455.23 submits that considering the standard of living of wife and the fact that she has to maintain her daughter who is pursuing education, the amount directed to be paid is appropriate.

5.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the record it reveals that there is no dispute about the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Admittedly it was brought to the notice of the Family Court that the petitioner is receiving Rs. 1,18,000/- as monthly salary. I am of the opinion that even after deducting the EMI, the petitioner can pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the wife as she has to maintain her daughter also. 6.

Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 19.11.2022 passed below Exhibit 27 by Family Court Jalgaon, in Petition A-50 of 2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7.

The evidence of the respondent is already commenced and the same is recorded partly and the matter is kept for recording of further evidence.

8.

In view thereof, considering the issue involved that the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance amount, I deem it appropriate to direct the family Court to decide the main proceeding within a period of three months from today.

9.

In view thereof, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) mahajansb/