KALPESHBHAI BHUDARJIBHAI SANCHANIYA Vs. PARULBEN KALPESHBHAI SANCHANIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Rathin Raval learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot below Exhibit-17 in Family Suit No. 335 of 2013. 2. 1 The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner - husband had married to respondent - wife on 16.02.2002. Out of the said wedlock a child named Riva has been borne on 07.05.2007. The marriage did not last as a result of which it appears from the record that the present petitioner - husband has filed the proceedings before the Family Court for seeking judicial separation. The said proceedings have been registered as Family Suit No. 335 of 2013 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot. In the meantime, an application came to be moved by the respondent - wife under sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the purpose of seeking maintenance and costs of the proceedings on the premise that on account of the dire necessity of maintaining the minor child and to look after her studying and welfare and to sustain herself with minor daughter in this hardship, she needs at least Rs. 15,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance for maintaining herself and for minor daughter. The said application appears to have been filed on 08.05.2014 and came to be contested by the petitioner - husband. The said application at Exhibit-17 was heard by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot, and it came to be partly allowed by passing the order of maintenance of Rs. 17,500/- per month from April, 2014 and thereby the application came to be disposed of. An additional amount of Rs. 7,500/- came to be given by way of costs of application. On 02.03.2015, the said order which has been passed is the impugned subject matter of present writ petition submitted before this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The main premise on which the petition appears to have been submitted is that the petitioner - husband is earning a very meager amount and as against that earning of him, an extra amount of expenses to the extent of Rs. 17,500/- per month is awarded which in no circumstance is justifiable. It is further appearing from the record that the contention with regard to interim maintenance also appears to have been taken almost after a period of one and half year. It is also contended that the respondent-wife has sufficient funds to maintain herself and the child. It has also been mainly contended that it appears from the averment that the petitioner-husband is only earning Rs. 7,500/- per month by doing some job work and serving at factory and to indicate that a certificate is also attached with the petition compilation. The record indicates that this Court on 15.06.2015 after considering his specific averment about his income of Rs. 7000/- per month appears to have issue notice making it returnable on 29.06.2015. That notice came to be issued on condition that before the next returnable date, the petitioner-husband shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Family Court towards the arrears of maintenance under the impugned order and he shall continue to deposit the maintenance at the rate fixed by the Family Court in the impugned order. Upon such specific condition, the stay was granted against the recovery of arrears. The said order reads as under :