Subodh Ramesh Balsaraf v. Sau. Seema Subodh Balsaraf

1 wp700.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.700 OF 2015 (Subodh Ramesh Balsaraf ..vs.. Sau. Seema Subodh Balsaraf) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 04-04-2016 Heard Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner (husband) and Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for the respondent (wife).

2.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The petitioner and the respondent both are advocates. The learned Judge has exhaustively considered the material placed on record and has recorded his conclusions in paragraph No.14 of the impugned order. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order.

3.

The Advocate for the petitioner has stated that after filing of the present petition, the respondent is appointed as Assistant Police Prosecutor and this fact is required to be considered while determining the entitlement of the respondent to receive the amount of interim maintenance.

2 wp700.15 4.

This being subsequent development, will have to be considered by the Family Court if appropriate application is moved by the petitioner. Keeping this issue open for consideration by the Family Court at appropriate Stage, if required, the petition is disposed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE pma