Mr. Vikram S/O Purushottam Mahajan Medical Attendant (Mpw) v. Mrs. Rohini W/O Vikram Mahajan And Another

10.wp.4464.2016.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4464 OF 2016 Mr. Vikram s/o Purushottam Mahajan ...Versus...

Mrs. Rohini w/o Vikram Mahajan and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders or directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Shri R. J. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 27/08/2021 In pursuance to the order dated 9.3.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed pursis dated 24.8.2021 indicating the regular deduction of the maintenance amount from the salary of the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served.

Heard Mr Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition challenges the order of maintenance dated 31.10.2015 passed by the learned Family Court awarding a maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month each to the wife and the daughter with effect from 1.11.2015. The determination of the grant of maintenance is based upon the salary of the petitioner which as on May 2013 was a gross amount of Rs. 27,990/- by holding the Net salary payable to be Rs.25,120/- per month. It is an admitted position that from 2013 till May 2021, the salary of the petitioner must

10.wp.4464.2016.odt have seen an increase, and therefore, the amount granted for maintenance for the wife and the daughter, which has been awarded, considering the salary of year 2013, as of now, does not appear to be disproportionate, considering the present salary of the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned judgment, as it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to maintain them. The reasoning by the learned Family court is logical and proper. The petition is therefore without any merit and accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Sarkate