1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION

NO.

214

OF 20

22

Bhupender Singh Lote, s/o Late

Mahinder Singh Lote, R/o Apartment

No.302 (B-Wing), Majestic Heights, Plot

Nos. 102 & 103, Angulimal Nagar,

Nagpur

–

440

017.

Mobile

No.9970516638

... PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

Vinit Kaur w/o Bhupender Singh

Lote, aged about 39 years,

Occupation : Housewife, Mobile

No.8329840113

2.

Ms. Hargun Kaur Lote, d/o

Bhupender Singh Lote, aged

about 11 years, Occupaton –

Student, through matural

guardian mother R.No.1.

3.

Master Parnit Singh Lote, s/o

Bhupender Singh Lote, aged

about 5 years, Occupation :

Student, through natural

2

guardian mother R.No.1.

R/o Quarter No. 228, Chokse

Colony, Kamptee Road, Nagpur –

440 014

… RESPONDENT

S

_____________________________________________________________

Mrs. Neelam A. Biala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for the respondents.

______________________________________________________________

CORAM

:

VINAY JOSHI, J.

D ATED.

:

30.06.2022.

ORAL

JUDGMENT

:

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.

Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

3.

This petition is for challenging the interim order dated

20.09.2021 passed by the Family Court whereby interim

maintenance has been granted to the son and daughter. The

petitioner-husband challenges the impugned order by contending

that though the respondent-wife is highly qualified and having good

source of income, the Trial Court has awarded maintenance at

excessive rate. It is contended that though the petitioner-husband

3

was regularly paying maintenance and bearing additional expenses

of children still the maintenance has been awarded from the date of

application i.e. from 07.08.2019. Moreover, it is the contention that

the Trial Court while directing the petitioner-husband to pay an

educational expenses has loosely directed to pay allied expenses

without specifying the nature of such expenses.

4.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-

wife and children has supported the impugned order. It is contended

that during pandemic period, the wife has lost her job and therefore,

she is not in a position to maintain her children. Precisely, it is

submitted that it is a matter of evidence to establish whether the

wife is potential to bear the expenses of children. Having regard to

the status of the petitioner, the wife is entitled to live in the same

condition.

5.

Admittedly, the marriage took place on 08.10.2006 whilst

the couple has been separated on 09.05.2019. The wife has applied

to the Family Court for grant of maintenance for herself and her

children in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The main petition is pending in which the evidence is yet to be

recorded. While passing interim order, the Trial Court has considered

4

the material on prima facie basis, on which declined to grant

maintenance to the wife. The said partial rejection has not been

questioned by the wife, in this Court.

6.

It reveals from the record that the husband is having

permanent job from which he is earning Rs.80,000/- per month.

Though it is urged that the wife is presently earning, at this stage

there are no documents to show that currently the wife is having

source of income. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the wife is running a Firm, however, the Trial Court

has already rejected to grant interim maintenance to the wife.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner being a father shoulders the

responsibility of bearing expenses of children at-least during interim

period.

7.

Having regard to the salaried income of father, the

amount of interim maintenance is appropriate, which requires no

interference. Likewise, the husband (father) has to pay an

educational expenses but, in order to b