Bombay High Court
JUSTICE R.M. Savant
Deepak L. Bhandare Vs. Durga Deepak Bhandare & Anr. On 23 September 2013
Law Point:
Trial Court fixed interim maintenance @ Rs. 5,000 per month as personal expenses for wife and Rs. 7,000 per month for the personal and school expenses of daughter — Trial Court assumed income of husband as Rs. 25,000 to 30,000 per month on basis of the income tax returns — It would be just and proper to reduce interim maintenance, granted to wife while maintaining the interim maintenance, granted to daughter — Wife would be entitled to maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month.
JUDGEMENT
1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is invoked against the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, by which order, the order passed by the Trial Court i.e. the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, ‘C’ Court, Panaji dated 25.10.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. Maint. 3/2011/C came to be confirmed.
3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that there are divorce proceedings pending between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein. The said maintenance was sought for herself as also for her daughter and the amount claimed was a sum of Rs. 40,000 per month. In the said proceedings, the respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per month for herself as well as her daughter. The said interim maintenance application was replied to on behalf of the petitioner herein. The Trial Court considered the said application on the basis of the material which was before it. The petitioner herein had filed his income tax returns for three preceding years on the basis of which, the Trial Court assumed that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000 and which according to the Trial Court, was bound to increase. The Trial Court, considering the said income of the petitioner and the expenses for school of the respondent No. 2 herein by its order dated 25.10.2012, fixed the interim maintenance at Rs. 5,000 per month as personal expenses for the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 7,000 per month for the personal and school expenses of the respondent No. 2 to be just and reasonable.
4. The petitioner herein, aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, carried the matter by way of revision before the Sessions Court which revision application came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 8.8.2013 and resultantly, the order passed by the Trial Court dated 25.10.2012 came to be confirmed.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner i.e. husband Mr. Usgaonkar and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents i.e. wife and daughter Mr. P.P. Singh would make submissions in support and against the impugned order.
6. In my view, since the issue is as regards interim maintenance and since the Trial Court itself has assumed that the income of the petitioner herein is in the region of Rs. 25,000 to 30,000 per month, which is on the basis of the income tax returns which are on record, it would be just and proper to reduce the interim maintenance, which is granted to the respondent No. 1 wife while maintaining the interim maintenance, which is granted to the respondent No. 2. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order dated 8.8.2013 insofar as it confirms the interim maintenance to the respondent No. 1 at Rs. 5,000 per month, is set aside and the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to the maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month as an interim maintenance. The interim maintenance granted to the respondent No. 2 for the sum of Rs. 7,000 is maintained,
(ii) The aforesaid interim maintenance would continue pending the decision of the main Application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
(iii) The hearing of the main Application is expedited.
7. In terms of the interim order dated 4.9.2013 passed in the above petition, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 30,000 in this Court before the next date. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Usgaonkar states that the said amount is, accordingly, deposited in this Court vide a pay order dated 11.9.2013 drawn on the Goa Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. The respondent No. 1 would be entitled to withdraw the said amount. The said amount would be adjusted against the amount payable to the respondents as an interim maintenance.
8. Needless to say that the main Application would be tried on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the instant order.
9. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their respective costs of the petition.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment