Arjun S/O Abhimanyu Bawne v. Ranjana W/O Arjun Bawne

WP4580-18 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4580/2018 (ARJUN ABHIMANYU BAWNE VERSUS RANJANA ARJUN BAWNE) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.D. Muley, counsel for petitioner.

Shri Deoul Pathak, counsel for respondent.

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATE : JULY , 2019.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court directing payment of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month.

The petitioner has filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2016. In those proceedings, the respondent file an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking grant of interim maintenance. The trial Court was pleased to award an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the application. Said order is challenged in the present writ petition. When notice was issued by this Court on 10.12.2018, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- in this Court within a period of one month to show his bona fides. That amount has not yet been deposited.

WP4580-18 Heard Shri V.D. Muley, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deoul Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent. It is seen that the trial Court while taking a prima-facie view of the matter has been pleased to award interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. In absence of any other material on record, I do not find it reasonable to interfere with the impugned order. The proceedings are pending before the trial Court wherein parties are free to lead their evidence in support of their respective contentions.

Hence, by clarifying that the observations made in the impugned order shall not prejudice the trial Court while deciding the proceedings on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

JUDGE APTE