The High Court of Bombay reviewed and discharged the rule in a writ petition challenging a Family Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month, finding no interference warranted.
Rule discharged; Writ Petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 901.7417.13 wp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7417 OF 2013
Bhagwan Krishna Porlekar .....Petitioner
V/s.
Shantabai Bhagwan Porlekar ....Respondent
Mr. Anand S. Patil for Petitioner
Mr. Sangramsinh Yadav for Respondent
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JUNE 27, 2014
PC :
2 901.7417.13 wp
filed seeking interim maintenance during the pendency of the main petition.
and thereafter, present petitioner had deserted her. Petitioner herein happens to be the retired military person and draws a pension of Rs. 25,000/- per month. That after his retirement on superannuation, he draws a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and therefore, she is entitled to interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Petitioner herein has specifically denied his relationship with the respondent as a legally wedded wife and has also denied the paternity of the son. According to the petitioner, the very fact that respondent herein is not a legally wedded wife, she would not be entitled to maintenance and therefore, he challenges the order passed by the Family Court. He has also denied the allegations in respect of cruelty and desertion. Petitioner submits that the very fact she is not a legally wedded wife, there is no question of desertion.
filed by the petitioner. Present petitioner had filed on record the copy of the
ism
3 901.7417.13 wp
Judgment in R.C.S. No. 435 of 2002 wherein, there were observations by the Court that the petitioner had not produced evidence to arrive at conclusion that respondent herein is the wife of defendant no. 2 i.e. present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has deposed on oath that she was residing with her brother for the last 30 to 35 years and unless and until, she is able to prove that she is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner, she would not be entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the petition under section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, no person would be entitled for interim maintenance and the same has to be decided at the conclusion of the petition under section 18 of the said act, since the relations between the parties are disputed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, parties to the petition under section 18 of the said act have to be necessarily related to each other.
ism
4 901.7417.13 wp
and panch witnesses. She had also placed on record marriage invitation card and public notice issued by the present petitioner in which he had admitted that present respondent happens to be his legally wedded wife. Learned Family Court had only considered the prima facie evidence which was sufficient to grant interim maintenance to the respondent herein. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that recording of evidence in the main petition has commenced. Respondent would establish by cogent and convincing evidence that she is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. However, during the interregnum, respondent herein would be entitled for the interim maintenance.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
ism
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court was justified in granting interim maintenance despite disputed relationship between the parties.
Whether a petitioner can challenge the Family Court's interim maintenance order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhagwan Krishna Porlekar
Shantabai Bhagwan Porlekar
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
