Bombay High Court
Sanjay Maroti Raithak And Anr vs Maroti Sitaram Raithak on 9 December, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
(1) 923 cra 11.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
923 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2017
1. SANJAY MAROTI RAITHAK
2. RAJU MAROTI RAITHAK
VERSUS
MAROTI SITARAM RAITHAK
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bora Satyajit S.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Kadam Gajanan G.
...
AND
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2018
MAROTI SITARAM RAITHAK
VERSUS
1. SANJAY MAROTI RAITHAK
2. RAJU MAROTI RAITHAK
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Kadam Gajanan G.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Bora Satyajit S.
...
CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE : 9th December, 2021
P.C.:-
Heard.
2. This is a revision preferred by the sons against the judgment and
order dated 7th December, 2016 passed by the Family Court, Nanded in
Petition No.e-295/2014, whereby maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is
granted to their father.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants Shri Bora vehemently submits
(2) 923 cra 11.17
that mother of the applicants is staying with sons. He submits with
vehemence that if sons can maintain their mother, there is no impediment for
the sons to maintain their father. He submits that even now applicants are
ready to maintain their father. They are ready to take care of their father and
also are ready to bear his medical emergency and medical expenses. He
submits that without considering these aspects of the matter the learned
Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-. He submits that
respondent was a Teacher in Zilla Parishad School, Nanded. He retired as a
Teacher and is drawing pension of Rs.17,000/- per month. He can very well
manage himself in the said amount of Rs.17,000/-. He submits that now
because of implementation of 7th Pay Commission, his pension must have gone
up considerably. He further submits that respondent in the trial Court did not
produce any record to show as to what exactly the salary of the applicants is.
Applicant no.2 is a Talathi and he gets meager income in which it is difficult
for him to make both ends meet. He, therefore, submits that revision be
allowed and the order of the learned Family Court be set aside. He further
submits that if the Court comes to the conclusion that revision is to be
dismissed, amount of maintenance be reduced. Learned counsel Shri Bora
submits that whatever arrears the applicants are liable to pay, the applicants
are ready to pay the said amount of arrears within two months from today.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits with equal
(3) 923 cra 11.17
vehemence that the respondent is more than 75 years of age. He is suffering
from multiple ailments. He has to engage a maid servant for cooking and
other household chores. He has to hire one assistant for his daily ablutions.
He submits that in pension of Rs.17,000/-, it is very difficult for him to take
care of himself and to meet the medical expenses. He submits that, therefore,
his revision application no.11/2017 be allowed.
5. Perused the record. It appears that respondent has been cross-
examined only on the point of medical emergencies and medical expenses. So
far as income of the applicants is concerned, both the parties agree that no
documentary evidence was placed on record before the trial Court. It is not in
dispute that respondent is getting pension of Rs.17,000/- per month. In this
Rs.17,000/- he can meet his daily needs. The learned trial Court granted
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- only for medical expenses. Considering the rise in
medical expenses, I deem it appropriate to enhance the amount of
maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- each. In this view of the matter,
revision application no.165/2008 is dismissed. Revision application
no.11/2017 is partly allowed. Amount of maintenance is enhanced from
Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. All the other applications stand disposed
of.
mub [M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.]
