1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2387 OF 2009 Sow. Pradnya W/o Hanumant Kanadkhedkar Age : 24 Years, Occ. Student, R/o : C/o : Va;sudeorao Parlay, Saptagiri Colony, Taroda (Bk.), Nanded, Dist. Nanded. ..... PETITIONER V E R S U S Dr. Hanumant S/o Laxmikant Kanadkhedkar Age : 32 Years, Occ. : Medical Practitioner, R/o : Harale’s House, Beside Nitish Photo Studio, Vidya Nagar, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. .... RESPONDENT Shri. S.C.Bora, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.N. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. [ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 06/07/2009 ------------------------------------------------- 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Parbhani dated 3/1/2009, vide which an application filed by the petitioner for maintenance came to be rejected. Shri. S.C. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Parbhani has not given any reasons for rejecting the application. He further submits that the reasons given by the learned trial Judge are also irrelevant for adjudication of the matter, which was pending before the learned trial Judge. 3. Shri. R.N. Bharaswadkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent, on the contrary, submits that it is due to absence of the petitioner before the learned trial Judge, the order came to be passed. He submits that the petitioner has been consistently absent before the learned trial Judge. 4. From the perusal of the impugned Order, it can be seen that the learned trial Judge has found that the petitioner is a lawyer and since 3 she is educated, she can very well make the provisions for her own maintenance. The another reason given by the learned trial Judge is that the respondent has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. I find that the reasons given by the learned trial Judge are totally irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the application filed by the present petitioner for maintenance pendate lite. It is reported that the matter is now transferred from Parbhani to Nanded. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 3/1/2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Judge for deciding the application filed by the petitioner afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties. The learned trial Judge to decide the matter within the period of 3 months from today. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP2387.09