PANKAJ PRAKASH GUNDAWAR Vs. SHWETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 20/11/2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Nagpur by which order the application for interim maintenance came to be allowed and the petitioner/husband was directed to pay Rs.8000/ per month as interim maintenance i.e. Rs.5000/ per month towards the wife and Rs.3000/ per month towards the son. The petitioner/husband was also directed to pay Rs.1200/ per trip from Nanded to Nagpur for herself and escort on production of tickets and the petitioner/husband was also directed to pay interim litigation expenses of Rs.3000/ to the respondent/wife.

(3.) The order ex facie discloses that the Trial Court has considered the six entries appearing in the bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank in respect of the account of the petitioner, which entries are in respect of the deposits made by the petitioner/husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this court has explained the six entries. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is on account of refund of payment received by the petitioner/husband in respect of Flat which he had booked, the amount of Rs.4,01,264.10 is the withdrawal at the prematurity stage of a term deposit. The amount of Rs.64000 and Rs.21000/ are on account of the amount received by virtue of the mediclaim and the amount of Rs.46000/ and Rs.56000/ are the amounts which the petitioner/husband has allegedly raised from his friends. The aforesaid explanation was not before the Family Court and resultantly, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion that the said amount might have been deposited on account of some transactions. In my view, therefore, the impugned order dated 20/11/2011 is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Family Court for a de novo consideration on the anvil of the said explanation.