RAJESH NANAJI MORGHADE Vs. DARSHANA RAJESH MORGHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1, i. e. , Smt. Darshana w/o Rajesh Morghade, filed Petition No. C-20/96 under sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Family Court at Nagpur, in which she claimed maintenance for herself and respondent No. 2, i. e. , her son, to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month, from the appellant. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that on 25-12-1994, she got married to the appellant as per the Hindu rites and customs. The respondent No. 1 thereafter was residing with the appellant at his place at New Shukkarwari, Nagpur. The respondent No. 1 initially after marriage was being treated well by the appellant/husband for few days. Mother and sisters of the appellant thereafter started ill-treating the respondent No. 1. The ill-treatment was on account of non-payment of adequate dowry in the marriage. The respondent No. 1 became pregnant in the year 1995 and the fact of pregnancy has been communicated by her to the appellant. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that the appellant insisted upon terminating the pregnancy. Since the respondent No. 1 refused to oblige the appellant, the appellant gave her beating and abused her in filthy language. In spite of the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to the respondent No. 1 by the appellant, the respondent No. 1 gave birth to a male child who is present respondent No. 2. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that her life became miserable because of the ill treatment meted out to her by the appellant. The appellant ultimately has driven her out from the house on 17-4-1996 and she thereafter was forced to live with her parents. It is further the case of the respondent No. 1 that she is from a respectable middle class family. The appellant is the owner of one wine-shop and is a partner in two Liquor Bars situated in Nagpur. He is also owner of a house namely, Morghade Bhavan Mahal, Nagpur and receives Rs. 6,000/- per month by way of rent of the said house. The income from the Bars and Wine shop is about 44,000/- rupees per month. The total income of the appellant, according to the respondent No. 1, is Rs. 50,000/- per month and, therefore, she claimed Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and her son. The above-referred petition is pending on the file of the Family Court, Nagpur, for adjudication and decision.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1, during the pendency of the above-referred petition, filed an application, bearing Application No. 32/96, for grant of interim maintenance and the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, vide order dated 16-5-1997, allowed the said application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the appellant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent No. 2 per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal against order.

(3.) SHRI A. R. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant has never ill-treated his wife/respondent No. 1, nor is there any neglect on his part; he is willing and ready to maintain the respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that the appellant has no source of income. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 is a Graduate and can get employment anywhere. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the respondent No. 1 herself has withdrawn from the company of the appellant and, therefore, she is not at all entitled to any maintenance as claimed by her in her original Petition No. C-20/96, nor is she entitled for any interim maintenance. It is submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to maintain the respondent No. 2. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant is not the owner of any Wine Shop or Liquor Bars, as alleged by the respondent No. 1. However, the appellants mother is having a house in Mahal area of Nagpur. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is not earning Rs. 44,000/- per month, as alleged by the respondent No. 1, nor is he receiving Rs. 6,000/- as rent from the house property. The learned Counsel contended that the Court below, while granting the interim maintenance, lost sight of these vital circumstances and, therefore, the impugned order is not proper. He further submitted that the Family Court erroneously held that the appellant is having 1/3rd share in the income of his mother, without there being any evidence to that effect brought on record by the respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the order of interim maintenance passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, is not sustainable in law.