ASHOK SADANAND Vs. ROJMERY ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The applicant is the husband. He has impugned the order of maintenance passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmednagar in E Petition No. 122 of 2018 dtd. 8/1/2020. The learned Judge quantified the maintenance @ Rs.4,000.00 per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 17/12/2013. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the divorce petition was filed prior to the application filed by the respondent before the Magistrate under Sec. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequent thereto, she moved an application on 17/12/2013. The competent Court granted the divorce decree in favour of the petitioner on 3/11/2014. The vehement argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent suppressed the material fact from the Court and obtained an order of maintenance. Therefore, the order impugned is illegal and against the provisions of law. He would further argue that the learned Judge, Family Court, has passed an order closing the evidence of the applicant on the day of delivering the judgment. Hence, he had no opportunity to appear and lead the evidence. Apart from this ground, he has also argued that the respondent stayed with the petitioner for seven days only, therefore, there is no question of refuse to maintain her. The quantum determined by the learned Court is based upon the guess work and committed an error believing that the petitioner is getting a regular income. Therefore, the quantum and maintenance determined is exorbitant and against the fact.