Sudhakar Bhagchand Laghane v. Savita Sudhakar Laghane

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 244 OF 2021 Sudhakar s/o Bhagchand Laghane Petitioner

Versus

Savita w/o Sudhakar Laghane Respondent Mrs.Chhaya Gaikwad, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.J.Pahune Patil, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : V.K.JADHAV, J.

DATE : 11th February, 2021.

PC :

By consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission.

Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted about source of income of the petitioner, however, I am not inclined to reduce quantum of maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court has observed that the petitioner-husband as two sources of income (i) he is one of the Directors of Chit Funds Company; and (ii) he runs one hotel. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that due to outbreak of pandemic Covid-19 and subsequent declaration of lock down, which was extended for a

{2} long period, the said business of Chit Funds Company has almost been stopped, however, the petitioner has not placed on record any accounts extracts or documents before the Family Court or before this Court to demonstrate that due to outbreak of pandemic Covid-19 and subsequent declaration of lock down, his income from the said business was substantially reduced. Apart from this, though the petitioner has submitted before the Family Court that his hotel business is stopped, however, the Respondent-wife, who is the best witness in respect of his source(s) of income, has consistently stated that he earns substantial amount from both the sources. Out of the said wedlock, there is one male child, namely Abhishek, aged about 14 years, however, the said child is in the custody of the husband.

Thus, considering the fnancial status of the petitioner-husband, the learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly carved out amount of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month. I do not fnd that any case is made out to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court.

{3} Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently made a submission about quantum of maintenance, however, I am informed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-wife that till this date, the petitioner-husband has not paid a single pai to the Respondent-wife towards maintenance.

Thus, considering the entire aspects of the case, I am not inclined to take a lenient view so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned.

Hence, the following order:

Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.

(V.K.JADHAV) JUDGE adb