Sarita Amit Satpute v. Amit Arjun Satpute
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7931 OF 2017 Sarita w/o Amit Satpute, Age : 28 years, Occu.: Household, C/o.: Bhagwan Gadekar, Khandoba Nagar, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.
....
PETITIONER (Ori.Respondent)
VERSUS
Amit Arjun Satpute, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Malivadi, Tq. : Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
....
RESPONDENT (Ori. Applicant) ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. N. S. Jaju Advocate for Respondents : Mr. M. R. Sonwane ...
CORAM
: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : 26.09.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2.
The petitioner/wife is aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2017, by which the application filed by the petitioner at Exhibit14 seeking interim maintenance has been rejected on the ground that it is the duty of the wife to indicate that her monthly salary of Rs.4,500/- is not sufficient and she cannot survive in the said amount. 3.
The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain [AIR 2010 SC 3540]. The respondent relies upon the judgment of this court in the matter of Ritula Singh v. Lt. Col. Rajeshwar Singh [2010(4) Mh.L.J. 797].
4.
Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective sides and upon going through the judgments cited, it is apparent that while deciding a claim for interim maintenance, the Trial Court is not required to conduct a detailed investigation into the matter. It has to consider the contentions of the parties, the comparative hardships and grant interim maintenance so that the claimant is in a position to sustain herself during the pendency of the proceedings. 5.
It has come on record that the wife had lost her earlier employment and has taken up a new employment as a trainee clerk and is drawing consolidated wages of Rs.4,500/-. Her father is a pensioner and she is living with her father at Shevgaon, which is about 30 Kms. away from Taluka : Paithan where she has acquired the said temporary employment.
6.
It is recorded by the Trial Court that the husband draws a monthly salary of Rs.29,611/-. His father and mother do not reside with him. His father owns a four-wheeler.
7.
It requires no debate that in such matters, the Trial Court is expected to adopt a pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic approach. The comparative earnings of the litigating sides should have
been assessed and the Trial Court should have concluded as to whether the consolidated wages of Rs.4,500/- are sufficient for surviving in a month.
8.
This petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2017 is quashed and set aside and Exhibit-14 stands allowed.
9.
Considering the factors as recorded above and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the matter of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy, dated 19.04.2017 that 25% of the earnings of the husband would be appropriate maintenance, I find that, as an interim maintenance, the husband shall pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of application Exhibit-14.
vsm (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) JUDGE