NITENDRA VERMA Vs. JYOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed below Exh.25 dtd. 21/11/2017 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.613 of 2015, refusing cancellation of maintenance pendente lite under the changed circumstances.

(2.) Vide application, Exh.25 preferred on 13/7/2017, petitioner sought for an order of cancellation of maintenance pendente lite as he had to resign from job from 15/6/2017 for the reasons stated in. The order of maintenance pendente lite passed below Exh.11 being insufficient, the wife preferred Special Civil Application No.16948 of 2016 before this Court, which was pending when application, Exh.25 was made. In paragraph 4 of the said application, it is stated that the petitioner was serving with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Halol but the Company had shown its unwillingness to continue the petitioner in job, and therefore, the petitioner was asked, keeping in mind his future that he may resign from job, and therefore, as averred in the said application, the petitioner willingly resigned from the Company. If he fails to resign, the Company told him that he would be terminated. Apprehending his termination, as he would not be able to get another job, it is claimed that he resigned from job. Alongwith the said application, it appears that the petitioner produced relieving order dtd. 20/6/2017 issued by the Company wherein it is mentioned that he is relieved from the service after closing working hours of 15/6/2017. It is further asserted in the said application that since 15/6/2017 the petitioner is unemployed and he is not having any source of earning right now, and therefore, he is not able to pay the maintenance pendente lite, and therefore, he requested that keeping in mind the said changed circumstances, the order passed below Exh.11 directing maintenance pendente lite to be paid to the wife at the rate of Rs.40,000.00 per month be cancelled.

(3.) Mr. S.R. Kheskani, learned advocate for Mr. R.J. Goswani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that since the petitioner is unable to earn, much less, an amount of maintenance pendente lite as on date, it is difficult to obey the order passed by the competent Court. It is submitted that therefore the order of maintenance pendente lite is required to be cancelled in view of the changed circumstances.