Mr. Hirakant Narayan Bunde v. Mrs. Shalini Hirakant Bunde

Mr. S.D. Patil for petitioner. Ms. Geeta P. Mulekar for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 02, 2008. Date : June 02, 2008. Date : June 02, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:

Heard Mr. Patil the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband. The Petitioner has filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(1a)(ab) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Thane. In the said petition, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 for maintenance. The husband also filed similar application and claimed maintenance to be paid by the wife and at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. By the impugned order dated 8/10/2007 the application filed :2: by the wife and marked as Exh.8 has been allowed, whereas the application filed by the husband and marked as Exh.10 has been rejected. The husband has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2500/- per month to the wife by way of interim maintenance in addition to Rs.5000/- by way of costs.

Mr. Patil the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband has been thrown out of the house by the wife and the children and three business establishments i.e. Tejas Trading, Tanmay Decorators and Tejas Chines are being run by the wife with the assistance of the sons and, therefore, he does not have any financial resources to pay the maintenance amount. On the contrary, the trial court fell in errors by rejecting the application at Exh.10 filed by the husband, contends Mr. Patil.

The trial court has referred to the pleadings of the respective parties and specifically noted the contentions of the wife that the business establishments are being run by the husband. The :3: petitioner is admittedly around 60 years of age. Both the sons are grown up and they have their own employments. The husband in his divorce petition before the trial court has specifically stated that the elder son Tejas is B.Com. and engaged in the business under the name and style as "Tanmay Decorators" and the younger son Tanmay has passed B.E. in Computer and he is employed in a private firm. The trial court in the impugned order has considered the respective pleadings and also the financial capacity of the husband. The said order does not suffer from any errors apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the petition must fail at the threshold.

Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)