1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8447 OF 2009 Sandeep s/o Suryakant Jaiswal .. Petitioner VERSUS Miss Rinisha w/o Sandeep Jaiswal and another .. Respondents Mr. A.N.Kakade, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.R.Thorat, advocate for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is under guardianship of Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Respondent-wife presented an application under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month for herself and Rs.10,000/- per month for minor daughter and also costs of the proceedings. 2 It is not necessary to go into factual details of the matter. However, it is suffice to note that petitioner-husband did not cause his appearance and the matter has proceeded ex parte. The trial Court was pleased to direct the original respondent– petitioner herein to pay Rs.7000/- 2 per month towards maintenance allowance to wife and Rs.3000/- per month to minor daughter. Said order was passed by the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad on 25.01.2007. 3 Petitioner husband presented an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed by the Judge, Family Court on 25.01.2007. It is contended by petitioner husband that he was not served with the notice of proceedings. He was not staying at Akola and the service of notice by alternate mode is also defective. It is contended that the news paper, in which the notice is stated to have been published, does not have circulation in Akola region. The application was considered by the Judge of the Family Court and after considering the contentions raised by both the parties, the application was turned down in view of the order passed on 30.07.2009. 4 I have perused the application as well as impugned order passed by Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. It transpires on perusal of the order that there were several attempts made by Respondent-wife to serve petitioner-husband. However, the material placed on record leads to a conclusion that petitioner-husband tried to avoid service of notice. Initially 3 summons were issued vide Exhibit-25, however, petitioner-husband was not served with the summons. It transpires from perusal of bailiff report that on 12.09.2005, there was an attempt to serve petitioner-husband, however, his brother informed that he (petitioner-husband) is at Nagpur. The notice sent to the petitioner-husband by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (R.P.A.D.) was also sent back unclaimed. It also transpires on perusal of the record that the reason stated by petitioner husband that he is not staying at Akola, is untenable, as he has presented a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights at Akola Court, however, said petition came to be dismissed. In the petition presented at Akola Court, the petitioner husband has given his address at Akola. Petitioner husband also presented Criminal Application bearing No.146/2006 in this Court wherein also, his address was noted as at Akola. All the attempts made by Respondent-wife to serve the petitioner personally have failed. The petitioner-husband did not claim the notices sent under R.P.A.D. and those were returned back. Thereafter Respondent- wife proceeded to serve petitioner-husband by adopting alternate mode of service i.e. by publication of notice in the news paper. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the contention raised by the husband that he was not residing at Akola and was not served with the notice is tenable. 4 5 Apart from this aspect, it is contended that the petitioner- husband has not paid a single paisa towards maintenance since the date of order i.e. 25.01.2007. The petitioner husband was asked about his willingness to deposit 50% of the amount in this Court to facilitate him to contest the matter on merits once again. However, petitioner-husband has expressed his inability to deposit the amount towards maintenance. In these circumstances, the litigation pursued by the petitioner-husband cannot be said to be bona fide. There is consistent attempt on the part of petitioner- husband to avoid to pay the maintenance amount to his wife and his minor daughter. The contention raised in application by petitioner-husband is not bona fide and in the circumstances stated above, the Family Court was justified in turning down the application filed by petitioner-husband. In exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this is not a fit case to cause interference. 6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE adb/wp844709