The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to set aside interim maintenance orders due to the petitioner's absence, non-compliance with previous directives, and failure to prosecute the matter.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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.
15-ASWP-11862-2022.DOC
Gaikwad RD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11862 OF 2022
Govardhan Nana Mane Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
…Petitioner …Respondents
None for the Petitioner. Mr. Avinash Naikwadi , for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 1st December 2023
PC:-
1. The Petitioner assails the order dated 10th March 2021 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel by which the Petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- per month each to his minor children and Rs.7000/- per month to his wife towards interim maintenance from the date of application. He was also directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the application.
2. By an order dated 21st September 2023, the Petitioner was given liberty to place on record documents to indicate that he has paid school fees in respect of his minor children for the past two years directly to the school as also documents showing payment of EMI of his house at Khopoli in which the Respondent/wife is
Page 1 of 2
1st December 2023
15-ASWP-11862-2022.DOC
residing. He was also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as an arrears of maintenance directly in the bank account of the Respondent/wife on or before 9th October 2023.
3. By an order dated 23rd October 2023, the matter was adjourned by way of a last opportunity since the Petitioner appeared in person and stated that his Advocate was in some difficulty. Even today, the Petitioner has remained absent and there was no representation of any Counsel for the Petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, on instructions from Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, states that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- directed to be paid as per the order of this Court, has not been paid till date. He has not paid a single rupee towards the interim maintenance of his wife and two children.
5. It appears that the Petition has been filed only with the purpose of avoiding the payment of maintenance. He has not even complied with the orders of this Court.
6. In these circumstances, the Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution as well as for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 23rd September 2023.
Digitally signed by RAJU RAJU DATTATRAYAGAIKWAD DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:2023.12.02 11:10:46 +0530
Page 2 of 2
1st December 2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution and non-compliance of court orders.
Govardhan Nana Mane
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Dr. Neela Gokhale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
