Bombay High Court
Mrs Shraddha Ajay Shelke vs Ajayavinashrao Shelke on 8 July, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.34 OF 2009.
Mrs.Shraddha W/o Ajay Shelke,
Age 21 years, Occ.Household,
R/o C/o Shashikant Pralhadrao
Ponde, Deepnagar, 15/3, at
present Plot No.10,C-2,
Aurangabad, Saptashringi
Housing Society, N-7,
Aurangabad. ... Appellant.
Versus
Mr.Ajay S/o Avinashrao Shelke,
Age 26 years, Occ.Service,
At present C/o Mr.Arvind
Waman Shelke, Behind Anand
Hospital, Big India Corner,
Near Maruti Mandir, Sector 2G
Nigdi Pradhikaran,Pune. ... Respondent.
...
Mr.Nikhil Jaju, advocate holding for
Mr.L.B.Pallod,advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Atul M.Karad, with Girish Kulkarni, advocates
for the Respondent.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Date : 08.07.2016.
2 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. The present appellant has filed
Petition U/s 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking maintenance of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) p.m.
The Family Court partly allowed the said
application and granted maintenance at Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees three thousand) p.m. to the present
appellant from the date of petition. The wife
has filed the present appeal being dissatisfied
with the quantum of maintenance awarded.
3. Mr.Jaju, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant-wife had
filed petition for maintenance U/s 18(1) of the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
However, while deciding the said petition, the
Court considered the petition as if it is filed
U/s 18(2) of the Act of 1956. The relationship
between the parties is not disputed. At the
relevant time, the Respondent was serving and
earning salary of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lac
3 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
twenty five thousand) p.m. The Court has not
properly appreciated the aspect of cruelty as put
forth by the present appellant. The evidence in
this regard has not been properly appreciated.
According to the learned counsel, since December
2009, the Respondent is working in Multi National
Company and earning more than Rs.1,25,000/-
(Rupees one lac twenty five thousand) p.m. The
appellant ig is not in a position to maintain
herself and is not doing any work.
4. Mr.Karad, learned counsel for the
Respondent submits that from March to December
2009, the Respondent was jobless. The Family
Court after appreciating the evidence has rightly
come to the conclusion that the allegations of
the appellant against the Respondent of cruelty
are baseless. The learned counsel submits that
no illtreatment was meeted out to the appellant
at any point of time. Mr.Karad, learned counsel
submits that the Respondent has to maintain his
age old parents and is required to spend upon
their ailments.
4 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
5. This Court had asked the learned
counsel to take instructions from the Respondent
about the averments made by the appellant that
the Respondent is serving with Barclay
Technologies Ltd. at Hinjewadi, Pune. We had
asked the learned counsel to place on record the
salary certificate of the Respondent. The
learned counsel states that he could not get the
salary certificate, however, admitted the amount
of salary to be more than Rs.1,25,000/- p.m. as
contended by the appellant herein. The learned
counsel further submits that the appellant is
also engaged in her avocation of Fashion
Designing and earning handsome money.
6. We have considered the submissions. The
petition for maintenance was filed by the
appellant U/s 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956. The aspect of cruelty and
desertion were not germane for decision of the
said petition. Naturally, the observations with
regard to the said issues would not operate as
res-judicata in any other substantive
proceedings.
5 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
7. It is also not disputed that the
appellant and the Respondent are not residing
together since 2007-2008. There is nothing on
record to show that the appellant is doing some
avocation and earning amount to maintain herself.
In the evidence adduced, the appellant has stated
that she has not completed the Fashion Designing
course.
8.
Be that as it may, there is nothing on
record to consider the appellant has any source
of income, whereas the salary of the Respondent
admittedly is more than Rs.1,25,000/-p.m. (Rupees
one lac twenty five thousand only). The
appellant will be entitled to maintenance and the
standard of living commensurate to that of the
Respondent. Considering income of the
Respondent, at present maintenance of Rs.25,000/-
p.m. (Rupees twenty five thousand only) would be
reasonable. It has come on record that since
March 2009, the Respondent was out of service and
he has paid the maintenance amount regularly as
awarded by the Family Court.
6 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
9. Considering the fact that his salary
was less earlier, it would be appropriate to
direct the Respondent to pay maintenance to the
appellant at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
fifteen thousand only) p.m from the date of order
of the Family Court till June 2016 and from July
2016 shall pay maintenance at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand only) p.m. The arrears
shall be paid within a period of four (4) months
from today.
10. The appellant shall give Saving Bank
account number to the Respondent and the
Respondent may deposit the amount of maintenance
in the Saving Bank account of the appellant.
11. The Family Court Appeal is accordingly
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K.K.SONAWANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/Fca34.09
7 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
8 Family Court Appeal No.34/09
