AMOL CHANDRAKANT MAHAMUNI Vs. SWATI AMOL MAHAMUNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Galanage, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Megha Tembhurne, legal aid counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 31st August, 2015 made by the learned trial Judge granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. to the Respondent-wife. Mr. Galanage states that the Petitioner is jobless and therefore not liable to pay any maintenance to the Respondent. He states that the Respondent stayed with him as his wife only for two months. He states that he had earlier married but taken divorce and therefore, the Respondent is his second wife. He states that the Respondent raised unnecessary disputes with the Petitioner and his family members. He states that the conduct of the Respondent amounts to harassment. He states that the Respondent was never respectful to the Petitioner and his family members. He states that the Petitioner's mother who is Sr. Police Inspector (Retd.) visited the Respondent's home and requested her to return to the matrimonial home. However, the Respondent not only refused to return but also made false allegation and file complaint against the Petitioner's mother. Mr. Galanage states that despite of this, the Petitioner is open for one time settlement. He states that the Petitioner has deposited Rs. 15,000/- towards the arrears of maintenance from the date the impugned order was made. He states that the trial Judge erred in issuing a warrant against the Petitioner for recovery of arrears of maintenance. He submits that the order dated 15th February, 2017 by which such warrant was issued is also liable to set aside. He states that he has taken out Civil Application seeking for stay on the order dated 15th February, 2017. For all these reasons Mr. Galanage submits that this Petition may be allowed and the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Ms. Tembhurne, appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme defends the impugned order on the basis of reasoning which is reflected therein. She points out that on 1st July, 2017 the Petitioner had made a statement that he will deposit the entire arrears of maintenance within one week. On the basis of such statement this Court was persuaded to grant interim relief, however, the Petitioner failed to pay the arrears of maintenance as undertaken by him. She therefore submits that the Petitioner is in fact guilty of contempt of Court and in any case, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be exercised in favour of the Petitioner. She submits that the Petitioner had suppressed the factum of his previous marriage. The Respondent stayed with the Petitioner for six months. She submits that the maintenance amount awarded is in fact a pittance. She submits that the Petitioner is in service. She submits that the Petitioner had not other responsibilities since his mother is a retired Sr. Police Inspector and drawing pension. She therefore submits that this Petition may be dismissed with costs.