Ravindra Pandit Hire vs Yogini Ravindra Hire And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 7916 Bom

(10)-FCAST-10542-21.doc.

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.10542 OF 2021

Ravindra Pandit Hire                                     ..Appellant
      Versus
Yogini Ravindra Hire & Anr.                              ..Respondents

Ms. Nisha Mehra, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Shrikant Shirsath, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

                                CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
                                         PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

DATE : 15th JUNE, 2021

P.C.

Heard Ms. Nisha Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shrikant Shirsath, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. On 08.06.2021, we had passed a somewhat detailed order which reads as under :-

"2. This appeal has been preferred by the husband assailing the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the Family Court No.3 at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition C-18 of 2013.

3. By the said judgment and order the Family Court had directed the appellant to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.8,000/- per month to daughter as maintenance.

4. This order for payment of maintenance has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that his financial

BGP. 1 of 3 (10)-FCAST-10542-21.doc.

condition does not justify such maintenance amount. It is also contended that appellant has illicit relationship with another lady and through such illicit relationship he has four children. Appellant has to look after those four children as well. Therefore, the maintenance amount as directed by the Family Court should be reduced.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned judgment and order, we prima- facie find little merit in this appeal. Firstly, income certificate of the petitioner was not exhibited before the Family Court and neither has it been annexed to the present appeal. Secondly, the ground given to contend that the maintenance amount is exorbitant and should be reduced is wholly unconscionable. Despite having a legally wedded wife, appellant himself has admitted of having illicit relationship with another lady and through such relationship he says he has got four children whom he has to look after. He is thus not in a position to pay the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court. The so called justification or ground given by the appellant is nothing but a self inflicted wound and itself is a good ground for dismissal of the appeal.

6. However, on request made by learned counsel for the appellant, we grant a weeks' time to obtain instructions from her client as to whether he would like to withdraw the appeal.

7. Stand over to 15.06.2021."

3. Today, when the matter is called upon, learned counsel for the appellant submits that some time may be given to her client to try to settle the matter; according to her, respondent No.1 is not agreeable to the settlement offer of the appellant. Some more time may be required for persuasion.

BGP. 2 of 3 (10)-FCAST-10542-21.doc.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering our order dated 08.06.2021, more particularly para 5 thereof, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal. Maintenance awarded to the respondents is reasonable and does not warrant any interference.

5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J                            UJJAL BHUYAN, J




BGP.                                                               3 of 3