Shri Dhyaneshwar S/O Nagorao vs Smt. Nirmala W/O Dhayneswar ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3091 Bom

207.FCA67.16(j)                                                                      1/4


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                            FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.67/2016


Dhyaneshwar s/o Nagorao Mohadikar,                           ....Appellant
Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired (Pensioner)
R/o Manav Nagar Kharbi Bahadura,
Pandhan road, Kharbi, District Nagpur.

-vs-

Nirmala w/o Dhyaneshwar Mohadikar                         ..Respondent
Aged 45 years, Occ.: Daily wages
R/o Sonartoli Binakhi, Nagpur-17
Correct Address : At the office of Town Planning Department
           2nd Floor, Narang Tower, Palm Road,
           Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001.

                                    ........
Shri A.S.Moon, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Y.B.Mandpe, Advocate for respondent.
                                    .......

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATED : 16.02.2021

Oral Judgment : (Per A.S.Chandurkar, J.)

The challenge raised in the present appeal filed under Section

19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is to the judgtment dated 9.05.2016

passed in Petition No.C-55/2014 by which the proceedings filed under

Section 20 (1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking

marriage expenses of the daughter has been partly allowed by granting

sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent.

 207.FCA67.16(j)                                                                        2/4


2.          The      appellant      and   the   respondent    were      married        on

10.12.1991. On account of marital discord the parties started residing

separately. In the proceedings initiated by the wife, she was awarded

maintenance for herself and her two children. According to the wife her

daughter was married in the year 2014 for which she spent an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/-. Since the entire amount had been spent by her, she filed

the present proceedings claiming marriage expenses from her husband.

These proceedings were opposed by the husband by filing reply. The

husband denied the paternity of the said daughter and thus claimed that

he was not liable to pay any expenses.

3. The parties led evidence before the Family Court and after

considering the same, the learned Judge of the Family Court recorded a

finding that the paternity of the daughter had not been challenged by her

father-appellant. Further on the basis of the evidence on record, it was

found that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed was not exorbitant.

Since the husband was a pensioner and as the wife was also employed,

the claim to the extent of 50% of the marriage expenses came to be

granted. Hence this appeal by the husband.

4. Shri A.S.Moon, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant was not the father of the daughter of the respondent

and hence no liability could be saddled on the appellant. He further

207.FCA67.16(j) 3/4

submitted without prejudice that the evidence brought on record by the

respondent did not indicate that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- had been

spent for the marriage. The expenses to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- alone

had been proved. He therefore submitted that the Family Court

committed an error in partly allowing the application.

5. On the other hand Shri Y.B.Mandpe, learned counsel for the

respondent supported the impugned order. According to him, the

paternity of the daughter had not been challenged by the appellant till

date. The Family Court had granted only 50% of the amount as claimed

by the respondent which was reasonable. He therefore submitted that

there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the following point

arises for determination :

Whether the order passed by the Family Court deserves to be

interfered with ?

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have

perused the records of the case. At the outset, it may be noted that the

paternity of daughter has not been challenged by the appellant till date.

On the contrary, in the reply filed by the husband before the Family Court

it was admitted that the respondent gave birth to two children as claimed

207.FCA67.16(j) 4/4

which includes the married daughter. Hence the Family Court was

justified in not accepting this contention of the appellant.

The evidence on record indicates that the respondent had led

evidence indicating the amounts spent by her for the marriage of her

daughter. The said documents are at Exhibits 22 to 28. It is on that basis

that the marriage expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- were claimed. However the

learned Judge of the Family Court taking into consideration the

employment of the respondent has awarded expenses to the extent of

50%. We find the same to be reasonable and the said direction has not

been challenged by the respondent. The view as taken by the Family

Court is based on the evidence on record and we do not find any reason to

interfere with the same. The point as framed is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, the judgment 09.05.2016 in Petition No.C-

55/2014 passed by the Family Court stands confirmed. The appellant is

granted time of eight weeks to pay the balance amount of Rs.75,000/-to

the respondent. Family Court Appeal No.67/2016 is accordingly

dismissed with no order as to costs.

                       JUDGE                                 JUDGE



Andurkar..