Bombay High CourtWP/3415/2015dismissedrule discharged

Satish Ramesh Saraf v. Sau. Manjushri Satish Saraf (Ku. Manjushri Shrikrushna Divekar)

2018-01-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp3415.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3415/2015 Satish Ramesh Saraf ..Vs..

Sau. Manjushri Satish Saraf (Maiden Name : Ku. Manjushri Skrikrushna Divekar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. P.M. Chandekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. I.P. Khisti, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 8.1.2018.

Heard.

The petitioner / husband has challenged the order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent (wife) towards interim maintenance.

Though the order is challenged on various grounds, I find that the directions given by the Family Court cannot be faulted with as the petitioner has not been able to point out that the finding recorded by the Family Court that petitioner was getting salary of Rs.27,588/-per month in February, 2015 is not proper. It is undisputed that the couple is having a minor son, aged about 9 years, and the respondent - wife is maintaining minor son and separate amount of

2 wp3415.15 maintenance is not granted for son.

I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.

In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

This Court had passed an order on 27th June, 2015 recording that if the petitioner deposits Rs.5,000/- per month towards current maintenance and deposits Rs.10,000/- per month in lieu of arrears of maintenance within specified time, the impugned order shall not be executed.

The learned Advocates for the respective parties submit that the amount, which the petitioner will now have to deposit towards difference, after dismissal of this writ petition, would come to around Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Family Court till 30th June, 2018. On deposit of this amount, it shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in the name of "Aryan" - minor son of the couple.

The Family Court shall expedite the matter and if the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as directed above till 30th June, 2018, the proceedings shall be disposed till 29th September, 2018. JUDGE Tambaskar.