Mrs. Vidya Jitesh Kadam vs Mr. Jitesh Shantaram Kadam
2021 Latest Caselaw 44 Bom

                                                                        11.10763.14 WP.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 10763 OF 2014

      Vidya J. Kadam                                          ....Petitioner

              V/s.

      Jitesh S. Kadam                                         .....Respondent

      Ms. Supriya Gurav a/w Susmita Lawane i/b Mr. Sachin Bandkar for
      the Petitioner

                               CORAM :     NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:       JANUARY 4, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      This petition is by wife questioning the Judgment and                         Order

      dated     15/04/2013            passed   by   Family   Court,      Bandra         whereby

proceedings fled under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

('the Act' for short) came to be allowed by mutual consent.

2] Ms. Supriya Gurav holding for Mr. Sachin Bandkar would urge

that consent Decree came to be passed pursuant to consent terms

Exh. 3. In additional Consent terms Exh. 4, it was agreed between the

parties that Respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per

11.10763.14 WP.doc

month which term according to her is not incorporated in the consent

Decree passed by the Family Court on 15/04/2013. Apart from above,

the submissions are, amount of maintenance as was agreed to in

addition to consent terms at Exh. 3 in Exh. 4 are not honoured till

date.

3] I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned

counsel for the Petitioner. Consent terms Exh. 3 which are produced at

page 37 does not refect agreement for payment of monthly

maintenance. However, Exh. 4, additional consent terms speaks of

payment of maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month towards

maintenance. Admittedly additional terms as refected in Exh. 4 are

not refected in the order of dissolution of marriage. That being so, in

my opinion, it shall always be open for the Petitioner to seek correction

of the order dated 15/04/2013 passed by Family Court, if there is any

mistake on the part of Court below in not incorporating or adhering to

consent terms in the Judgment dated 15/04/2013 whereby the

marriage came to be dissolved pursuant to provisions of Section 13(B)

of the Act.

11.10763.14 WP.doc

4] With above observations and liberty, present Petition stands

disposed of.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]