wp3591.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO.3591 OF 2011 VISHWAS CHANDRAKANT BHINGARDIVE VERSUS SONALI VISHWAS BHINGARDIVE ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.B.S. Shinde, Adv. h/f Mr. Latange V.P. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Narwade Narayan B. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: December 13, 2011 ... This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 30th December, 2010 passed on Exh.13 in Marriage Petition No. 11/2009. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge has not discussed anything about the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Without any discussion, it is concluded in the impugned order in para 4 that the wp3591.11 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ respondent wife is not serving any where and he has no source of income. It is further argued that certain documents were placed on record to show that the respondent / wife is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, those documents have not been considered by the District Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and Exh.13 is required to be restored to its original file and then the District Court should adjudicate the same on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. He also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the writ petition and at the cost of repetition, submitted that the impugned order suffers from not assigning any reasons. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3 On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent, relying upon the affidavit-in-reply filed before this Court and wp3591.11 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ in particular, para 8 of the said affidavit, would contend that it is true that the respondent wife was working till July, 2010 and she was getting Rs.20,000/- per month. However, said job was temporary and she was working only up to the month of July, 2010. It is further submitted that the written statement was filed in the month of September, 2010 and the impugned order has been passed in the month of December, 2010, and therefore, the District Court rightly concluded that the respondent wife has no source of income and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2000/- to wife and Rs. 1000/- to the child as interim alimony. 4 The learned Counsel for respondent also invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in case of Anup Avinash Varadpande v/s Anusha Anup Varadpande (2010(2) Bom.C.R.10) and in particular, para 10 of the said judgment and submitted that paltry income earned by wp3591.11 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ wife, specially after separation or upon the neglect of the husband to maintain the wife, can not be termed as her income. It is merely an amount received upon the constraint to serve to make ends meet. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 5 Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the affidavit- in-reply filed by the respondent, I am satisfied that the respondent wife was working till July, 2010 and she was earning some amount. It is also relevant to mention that said job was for a temporary period. At the time of filing of the written statement in the month of September, 2010, the respondent wife was not in service and was not earning anything. The said contention of the respondent has been rightly accepted by the District Judge and findings recorded by the District Judge that she has no source wp3591.11 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ of income cannot be said to be perverse. 6 The view taken by the District Court is a reasonable view. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as watchman in the Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar and by way of serving in the said corporation, he is getting salary. Therefore, once this Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the Court below is reasonable, in that case, even if another view is possible, it cannot be a ground to entertain the writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition stands dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*