← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5232/2018others disposed off

Vishal Suryakant Jadhav v. Shweta Vishal Jadhav And ORS.

2020-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre3 pages

BDP-SPS Bharat D.

Pandit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by Bharat D.

Pandit Date: 2020.02.24 15:07:39 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5232 OF 2018 Mr. Vishal Suryakant Jadhav ..... Petitioner.

V/s Sou Shweta Vishal Jadhav and Ors.

..... Respondents.

Mr. Abhijeet Devkhile for the Petitioner.

Ms. Rati Sinhasane i/b Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State.

Affidavit-in-reply tendered by the Advocate for Respondent No.1 is taken on record.

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2020 P.C.:- 1] Under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs 20,000/- which order was confirmed in Appeal under Section 29 of the said Act. 2] Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband are, Petitioner is a BDS Doctor and considering his source and quantum of income, award of maintenance of Rs 20,000/- per month is on much higher side. Further submissions are, Respondent-wife is holding decree of BDS and was earlier practicing the said profession. That being so, she can independently earn for herself and as such 1/3

award of maintenance should have been Rs 10,000/- which is quite reasonable.

3] Submissions are opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

4] Considered submissions.

5] It is not in dispute that Petitioner is running Sai General Hospital and Dental Clinic near Pound Bus Stand, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune.

6] Apart from above, vague details of the immovable property are narrated from which Petitioner claimed to be earning rental income. 7] Considering aforesaid factual matrix and the fact that Respondent-wife is pursuing her BDS course, there is no independent source of income as on date to the Respondent-wife and as such, award of maintenance of Rs 20,000/- having regard to the lifestyle which Respondent-wife had spent with the Petitioner before 2/3

separation justifies award of maintenance of Rs 20,000/-. No interference is therefore called for. Petition fails and same stands dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 3/3