Deepali Dnyaneshwar Sonwane ... vs Dnyaneshwar Jatan Sonwane
2016 Latest Caselaw 4267 Bom

                                                   1

                                          UNREPORTED




                                                                               
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT




                                                       
                                          BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                      
                             FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.01 OF 2016



              1. Sau.Deepali S/o Dnyaneshwar




                                        
              Sonwane, Parental Name Ku.Deepali
              D/o Shanraj Jadhav, Age 29 years,
                             
              Occ.Household, Residing at C/o
              Shri Dhanraj S/o Bhaidas Jadhav,
              District Veternary Hospital,
                            
              Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad.

              2. Unatti @ Pari d/o Dnyaneshwar
              Sonwane, Age 3 years,Minor
              Under Guardian - Appellant No.1.                  ... Appellants.
      
   



                               Versus

              Dnyaneshwar S/o Jatan Sonwane,





              Age 31 years, Occ.Teacher,
              Residing at C/o Headmaster,
              Zilla Parishad, Primary School,
              Kokadda Taluka Dhadgaon,
              District Nandurbar.                               ... Respondents.





                                        ...

              Mrs.V.A.Shinde, advocate holding for Mr.Hemant
              Surve, advocate for the Appellants.
              Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent.
                                  ...




    ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2016                       ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 00:22:39 :::
                                                           2

                                          CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                                  K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

Date : 29.07.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Record and proceedings has been

received. We have heard the matter finally with

the consent of the parties.

2.

The present appellants had filed an

application U/s 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions

and Maintenance Act, claiming maintenance against

the Respondent, who is the husband of appellant

No.1 and father of appellant No.2. The

appellants had claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/-

p.m. (Rupees twenty thousand). The Family Court,

Aurangabad, partly allowed the said petition and

directed the present Respondent to pay

maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. (Rupees three

thousand) to the appellant No.1 and Rs.5,000/-

p.m. to the appellant No.2 from the date of the

said order. The present appeal is filed seeking

enhancement of the said amount of compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants

submits that the Respondent is a Teacher in the

School. The salary certificate for the month of

March and April 2014 is produced on record which

shows the gross salary as on the said date to be

Rs.31,890/- (Rupees thirty one thousand eight

hundred ninety). The said salary would be ever

increasing. The Respondent also has an

agricultural land to the extent of 1 hectare 87

Ares. The same is a Bagayat land. The Respondent

gets income from the agricultural land also. The

appellants had prayed for a reasonable amount of

compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty

thousand) p.m. The learned counsel further

submits that appellant No.2 is minor, taking

education. The amount is required for her

education and also maintenance. The learned

counsel submits that appellants are entitled for

the standard of life commensurate with that of

the Respondent. The appellant No.1 the wife of

the Respondent is house-wife and is not earning

any amount.

4. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

Respondent submits that in fact, before the

Family Court the assistance of advocate was not

made available to the parties. There is no

cross-examination to the appellant or the

Respondent. The Respondent be given opportunity

to cross-examine the appellant. The learned

counsel further submits that the agricultural

land is jointly owned by the Respondent along

with motherig and the other two brothers. The

Respondent has the responsibility to maintain the

mother and also perform the marriages of his

brothers as the Respondent is eldest in the

family. According to the learned counsel,

maintenance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand)

p.m. granted by the Family Court is also

exorbitant. Actually it is the appellant who has

withdrawn from the company of the Respondent

without any reasonable cause.

5. We have considered the submissions of

the learned counsel for respective parties, so

also have gone through the judgment and record

and proceedings. The petition was for

maintenance only and from the documentary

evidence itself, the case can be decided. The

oral evidence may not play pivotal role in

deciding the matter. The salary certificate of

the Respondent is on record which shows that the

Respondent was drawing monthly salary in

March/April 2014 of Rs.31,890/- (Rupees thirty

one thousand eight hundred ninety) and after

deduction, his take home salary was Rs.29,438/-

(Rupees twenty nine thousand four hundred thirty

eight). The same was two years back, with

addition of D.A. Naturally, the same would

increase. Be that as it may, even we take the

salary of the Respondent as shown in the salary

certificate of March/April 2014, the amount of

maintenance awarded would be on the lower side.

Even accepting the case of the Respondent that he

has to maintain his mother, still, the amount of

maintenance awarded by the Family Court would be

on lower side. The appellant No.2 i.e. the

daughter is a growing child, naturally, her need

would increase along with educational expenses

and the appellants are entitled for the standard

of living commensurate with that of the

Respondent. There is nothing on record to even

remotely suggest that the appellant No.1 - the

wife is in a position to do any avocation. In

the result, we pass the following order :

a) The appeal is partly allowed. The order

passed by the Family Court is modified to the

extent that Respondent is directed to pay

maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees

seven thousand) ig p.m. to appellant No.1 and

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) p.m. to the

appellant No.2 i.e. aggregate Rs.12,000/- (Rupees

twelve thousand) p.m. from the date of the order

of the Family Court, Auragnabad. The arrears as

per the present order shall be paid within a

period of six (6) months and maintenance per

month as awarded by this Court shall be paid

regularly each month. Needless to state as has

been ordered by the Family Court the amount of

maintenance awarded U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. is

merged in the maintenance herein awarded.

                      Sd/-                                         Sd/-
                (K.K.SONAWANE,J.)                         (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)


              asp/office/Fca01.16