Bombay High CourtWP/2198/2017dismissedrule discharged

Ravindra S/O Keshavrao Ramteke v. Smt. Sandhya W/O Ravindra Ramteke

2019-02-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp2198.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2198 OF 2017 (RAVINDRA KESHAVRAO RAMTEKE...VS.. SMT. SANDHYA RAVINDRA RAMTEKE.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.K.Sorde, Advocate for Petitioner.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : FEBRUARY 27, 2019.

Heard.

The petitioner (husband) has challenged the order passed by the trial Court directing him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent (wife) and Rs.10,000/- per month to daughterNeha. According to the petitioner, he is paying Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent (wife) towards maintenance, as per the orders passed in proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, for the respondent (wife) and daughter and if he is required to pay additional amount of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondent (wife) and daughter-Neha towards maintenance, it will cause unwarranted hardship to him.

The Family Court has recorded that the petitioner is serving with B.S.N.L. and his gross salary in August 2016 was Rs.1,03,340/- and after deduction, he was getting Rs.65,042/-. Considering the fact that the respondent/ wife has to maintain her daughter, who is now perhaps taking education in college and considering the income of the

2 wp2198.17 petitioner, it cannot be said that the Family Court has committed any error by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent(wife) and Rs.10,000/- per month for daughter-Neha from 1st July, 2016 i.e. from the date of filing of the application. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE RRaut..