Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Gundawar, challenged an order dated 20/11/2010 passed by the Family Court No.3, Nagpur, which directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.8000 per month (Rs.5000 for his wife and Rs.3000 for his son), Rs.1200 per trip for travel expenses from Nanded to Nagpur, and Rs.3000 as interim litigation expenses. The Family Court had relied on six entries in the petitioner's Kotak Mahindra Bank statement, which showed deposits totaling significant amounts. The petitioner contended that these entries were not indicative of his income: Rs.1,00,000 was a refund for a flat booking, Rs.4,01,264.10 was a premature withdrawal of a term deposit, Rs.64,000 and Rs.21,000 were mediclaim receipts, and Rs.46,000 and Rs.56,000 were amounts borrowed from friends. The High Court noted that this explanation was not placed before the Family Court, and thus the Family Court had concluded that the deposits might be from some transactions without hearing the petitioner's side. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it, remanding the matter to the Family Court for de novo consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain the bank entries. The court directed the Family Court to decide the interim maintenance application afresh, considering the petitioner's explanation and any other evidence. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The Family Court allowed interim maintenance based on bank entries without giving the husband an opportunity to explain those entries. The High Court held that the husband's explanation, which was not before the Family Court, required a de novo consideration. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after considering the husband's explanation. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance was sustainable when the husband was not given an opportunity to explain the bank entries that formed the basis of the order.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 20/11/2010 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Family Court for de novo consideration of the application for interim maintenance, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain the bank entries. The Family Court shall decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interim maintenance
- opportunity of hearing
- remand for de novo consideration
- explanation of bank entries
- financial capacity
