Partly allowed

Ushabai Ganesh Mane and Ors. v. Ganesh Sheshrao Mane and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2013WP/600/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the lower court's order in a writ petition challenging the denial of interim maintenance to a petitioner. The court held that maintenance should be granted to the petitioner despite the dispute over formal marriage status, considering the cohabitation and children born from the relationship.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order modified to direct respondent No. 1 to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 500 per month to petitioner No. 1 from the date of the order.

Ushabai Ganesh Mane and Ors. Vs Ganesh Sheshrao Mane… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 600.2013 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2013

¶4

Sau. Ushabai W/o Ganesh Mane Age : 37 Yrs., Occ. : Household, R/o : Bhogalgaon, Tq. : Gaorai, Dist. : Beed, At present Mangu-jalgaon, Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. : Jalna. 2. Nisha D/o Ganesh Mane Age : 13 Years. 3. Rahul S/o Ganesh Mane Age : 9 Years. 4. Rohit S/o Ganesh Mane Age : 7 Years. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 being minors, are under guardianship of their natural mother - Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Ushabai W/o Ganesh Mane. .... PETITIONERS

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

Ganesh S/o Sheshrao Mane Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. : Agril., R/o : Bhogalgaon, Tq. : Gaorai, Dist. : Beed.

¶7

2 W.P. 600.2013 - [ J ]

¶8

Sheshrao S/o Ghansham Mane Age : 72 Yrs., Occ. : Agril., R/o : Bhogalgaon, Tq. : Gaorai, Dist. : Beed. 3. Gangubai W/o Sheshrao Mane Age : 67 Yrs., Occ. : Agril., R/o : Bhogalgaon, Tq. : Gaorai, Dist. : Beed. .... RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr.A.B.Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/2013.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶14

the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶15

The present petitioners have filed Suit for partition and separate possession. In the said proceedings, the petitioner also filed an application for interim maintenance. The Court partly allowed the said application and granted interim maintenance of ` 500/- [ Rupees Five Hundred only ] each to petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 and denied the interim

¶16

3 W.P. 600.2013 - [ J ]

¶17

maintenance to the petitioner No. 1.

¶18

Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mr. Krishnakant Mulashankar Vyas V/s Mrs. Reena Krishna Vyas & Anr. reported in 1999 (1) Bom.C.R. - 626 and the Judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. N.Pushpalatha V/s B.V.Jayaram reported in 2011 (1) ALL MR (Journal) I to contend that even under void marriage, the lady is entitled for maintenance. According to the learned counsel, the Court below has failed to consider the said aspect and has wrongly rejected the application to the extent of petitioner No. 1.

¶19

Mr. Gaikwad, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the order and submits that no marriage had taken place between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 had also filed proceedings U/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she had contended that the marriage has taken place at Mangu-jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon whereas in the present proceedings, the petitioner No. 1 contends that the marriage has taken place at Paithan. This itself shows falsity of the claim put-forth by the petitioner No. 1. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner No. 1 is leading adulterous life and

¶20

4 W.P. 600.2013 - [ J ]

¶21

on the face of it this can be proved by two (2) letters which are filed on record by the present respondent No. 1. A woman who is unchaste and leading adulterous life, is not entitled for any maintenance. The learned counsel further contends that when the petitioner No. 1 has no share in the property, no question of payment of maintenance to the petitioner No. 1 arises.

¶22

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order.

¶23

The fact that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are children born to the respondent No. 1 from petitioner No. 1 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that there was relationship between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1. The factum of dispute is about the alleged marriage. The Court has observed that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for maintenance on the ground that petitioner No. 1 can not be construed to be the wife and is not recognized as wife. Whether the petitioner No. 1 is leading adulterous life or not would be the subject matter of evidence. At this stage, the said aspect need not be considered. Only the application for maintenance would be considered. The fact remains that the petitioner No. 1 had stayed with respondent No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the children born to the petitioner No. 1 from respondent No. 1. In

¶24

5 W.P. 600.2013 - [ J ]

¶25

such a case, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Krishnakant Mulashankar Vyas referred supra has held that the lady would be entitled for the maintenance.

¶26

It would not be appropriate to direct the present respondent

¶27

Nos. 2 and 3 to pay maintenance amount. Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, I pass the following order :

¶28

The impugned order is modified to the extent that the respondent No. 1 shall pay interim maintenance of ` 500/- [ Rupees Five Hundred only ] per month also to the petitioner No. 1 from the date of this order. The rest of the order is upheld.

¶29

The Court below shall try to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶30

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶31

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶32

KNP/W.P. 600.2013 - [ J ]

Ushabai Ganesh Mane and Ors. v. Ganesh Sheshrao Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ushabai Ganesh Mane and Ors. v. Ganesh Sheshrao Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal Vs Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Amarsing Digambar Jadhav Vs Manoj @ Manojkumar Shamsundar Jadhav and Ors.

Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawde Vs Narayanrao Govindrao Tawde and Ors.

Kashinath Appasaheb Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Dilip Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chandarbai Namdeo Motegaonkar and Another Vs Shamal Govind Chamale and Others