← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/913/2024dismissed

Sunil Bhaurao Deshbhratar v. Archana Sunil Deshbhratar

2025-02-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor2 pages

2025:BHC-NAG:1920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.913 OF 2024 SUNIL BHAURAO DESHBHRATAR VS ARCHANA SUNIL DESHBHRATAR AND ANR.

______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Ms S.D. Paul, Advocate for the petitioner/s Mr. S.S. Bhalerao, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 -------------------------------

CORAM

: ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATE : 26 th FEBRUARY, 2025 1.

The order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the family Court No.3, Nagpur, enhancing the amount of enhanced maintenance granted to the wife and the daughter to the tune of Rs.12,000/- each, is under challenge on the ground that the amount is exorbitant.

2.

However, the salary certificate shows that the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.1,16,096/- after deducting, the net salary he gets Rs.69,883/-. However, deduction for GPF Rs.20,000/- cannot be considered while determining the amount of maintenance, as the said amount is receivable by the petitioner at the time of his superannuation. Thus, if that amount is included in the net salary, it comes to Rs.89,883/-.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that his elder brother and his wife are deaf and dump, and are dependent upon him. However, this fact has not been accepted by the nd.thawre

learned Family Court for the reason that no evidence has been produced on record to show that they are dependent upon the petitioner.

4.

Thus considering this fact it is evident that there is no one dependent on the petitioner. In the circumstances, considering the net salary of the petitioner, which comes to Rs.90,000/- per month, granting Rs.12,000/- each to wife and daughter, is the reasonable amount to live dignified life by his wife and daughter.

5.

In that view of the matter, I do not want to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) nd.thawre