← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5801/2023dismissed

Prashant S/O. Punjaji Deshmukh v. Sau. Sapna Prashant Deshmukh

2024-08-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil L. Pansare2 pages

1 22 wp 5801-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5801/2023 Prashant S/o Punjaji Deshmukh Vs.

Sau. Sapna Prashant Deshmukh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Mohan, Advocate for petitioner Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

DATED : 14/08/2024 The challenge is to order dated 17/02/2023, passed by Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana granting interim maintenance of Rs.9000/- in favour of respondent-wife.

2.

Having heard both sides and having gone through record, it appears that the petitioner has filed petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce. The respondent-wife filed application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim maintenance. The Trial Court noted that petitioner is earning Rs.30,000/- per month though the respondent claims that he is earning 90,000/- per month. The Trial Court then noted that the petitioner failed to submit the affidavit of assets and liabilities in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and

2 22 wp 5801-2023 another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, disclosing the income out of salary. Accordingly, the Court considering the material available before it directed the petitioner to pay to respondent - wife Rs.9000/- per month. 3.

I do not find the approach of Trial Court to be erroneous or perverse rather it is in consonance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4.

The petition is therefore dismissed.

(ANIL L. PANSA/RE, J.) Jayashree..