Pratibha Vikram Deshmukh And ... vs Vikram Shahaji Deshmukh
2016 Latest Caselaw 5814 Bom

                                                              WP No. 6602/16
                                          1




                                                                          
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                  APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 6602 OF 2016

     1.       Smt. Pratibha w/o. Vikram Deshmukh,
              Age 32 years, Occu. Household,
              R/o. Behind the Hospital of Dr. Pawar,




                                                 
              Barshi Naka, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist.
              Osmanabad.

     2.       Kum. Vaishnavi d/o. Vikram Deshmukh,




                                       
              Age 6 years, Occu. Education,
              Being minor, under the guardian of
              her mother, Petitioner No. 1 Smt.
                             
              Pratibha w/o. Vikram Deshmukh                ...Petitioners.

                      Versus
                            
              Shri. Vikram Shahaji Deshmukh,
              Age 36 years, Occu. Service,
              R/o. C/o. T.V. Shinde,
              C/603, Shri. Laxmi Vihar Society,
      

              Survey No. 163, Malwadi Road,
              Hadapsar, Pune-411028.                       ....Respondent.
   



                                          ...
                     Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners.
                   Mr. G.K. Naik-Thigle, Advocate for respondent.





                                          ...

                                        CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
                                        DATED : 1st October, 2016.

     JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed to challenge the order made on

Exh. 93 in H.M.P. No. 82/2012. The application was filed for

WP No. 6602/16

enhancement of maintenance which was already granted under

section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. By allowing the previous

application, the maintenance was granted at the rate of 2500/-

p.m. in the year 2014 and so, the application for enhancement

of maintenance was filed on 1.3.2016. The enhancement is

granted to make it RS. 7,000/- total from the date of the order

i.e. 15.6.2016.

3.

The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

there is grievance that no separate maintenance is awarded in

favour of daughter. He has also grievance that the total income

is not considered and reasonable amount which can be sufficient

for maintenance is not granted. He submitted that no amount is

granted as expenses by the Court.

4. In the present proceeding, the learned counsel for

husband produced on the record copies of the salary certificates

issued by the employer to show that in the year 2014 the

monthly salary which was take home salary was around Rs.

53,000/- and in 2016 take home salary is almost the same

though some deductions are shown. The learned counsel for

husband submitted that he is required to maintain his old

parents. There is the record of pension of the father of the

WP No. 6602/16

husband showing that he is getting hardly Rs. 1,500/- p.m.

5. If aforesaid contentions are considered this Court

holds that daughter and wife are entitled to get Rs.7,000/- each

p.m. Similarly the wife will be entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- as cost

of the proceeding. This amount will be less than 1/3 rd salary of

take home salary.

6.

So, petition is allowed. The order of the learned Trial

Court Judge is modified to make the total amount as Rs.14,000/-

p.m. out of which amount of Rs. 7,000/- is awarded in favour of

daughter. Husband do pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost of the

proceeding. The order of the Trial Court that the amount will be

payable from the date of order is maintained. The Trial Court is

expected to dispose of the matter expeditiously and in any case,

within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is

made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

ssc/