Bombay High Court
Swati Deepak Jogdand vs Deepak Bhaskarrao Jagdand on 15 September, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
ca-11564-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11564 OF 2018
IN SA/568/2010
SWATI W/O DEEPAK JOGDAND
VERSUS
DEEPAK S/O BHASKARRAO JOGDAND
...
Mr. S. S. Manale, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. R. S. Sarvadnya and Mr. M. S. Tekale, Advocates for the respondent.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
Reserved on : 09.08.2021
Pronounced on : 15.09.2021
ORDER :-
. Present application has been filed by the appellant - original
petitioner for directing the respondent - husband to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the applicant and her daughter during
pendency of the second appeal. So also, he be directed to pay amount
of Rs.50,000/- towards the expenses of second appeal.
2. Present applicant - original petitioner had filed H.M.P. No.33 of
2004 for restitution of conjugal rights before learned Joint Civil Judge
Senior Division, Beed. The said petition came to be allowed on
14.06.2007. The respondent - husband had filed Regular Civil Appeal
No.182 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Judge, Beed
(1)
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 08:29:45 :::
ca-11564-2018.odt
challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower
Court. The said appeal came to be allowed on 23.06.2010 by setting
aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Court and
dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant. Hence, she filed the
present second appeal. The second appeal was admitted by framing
substantial questions of law on 14.11.2011 and it is pending for its final
decision. In the meantime, this application has been filed under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance and expenses of the
proceedings during pendency of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Manale for the applicant.
Learned Advocate Mr. R. S. Sarvadnya and learned Advocate Mr. M. S.
Tekale were absent. The real record would show that they had obtained
adjournments to file say/reply. So also, in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, [(2021) 2 SCC
324], they were directed to file affidavit in respect of the income.
Sufficient time was given to the respondent to file the affidavit, however,
it has not been filed.
4. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. Further, the
learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that in another
proceedings i.e. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.381 of 2015 by
(2)
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 08:29:45 :::
ca-11564-2018.odt
judgment dated 19.12.2017, the maintenance awarded to appellant
No.1 - wife has been enhanced to Rs.8,000/- per month and to
appellant No.2 - daughter, it is enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f.
10.08.2015, however, it has also not been regularly paid by the
respondent. There is no source of income for the appellant and,
therefore, that amount deserves to be enhanced. In fact, when the
petition for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed, there was no such
directions regarding payment of maintenance and thereafter, the first
Appellate Court has reversed the decree. Therefore, in order to survive,
the applicant has no alternative, but to file this application. Further, at
the time when the maintenance was enhanced in Miscellaneous Civil
Application No.381 of 2015, the salary of the respondent was less i.e. it
was to the tune of Rs.34,386/-, however, thereafter, now it has been
increased in view of the fact that 7 th pay commission has been made
applicable to the respondent. The respondent is serving in
MAHAVITARAN i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
Ltd. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 17.06.2021 had directed the
appellant to produce current salary sleep of the respondent on record.
The salary slip of the respondent (true photocopy) issued by the
employer on 03.05.2021 shows his gross salary at Rs.72,440/- and the
deduction is to the extent of Rs.20,415/-. The applicants are staying in
(3)
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 08:29:45 :::
ca-11564-2018.odt
rented premises. The landlord is charging Rs.6,000/- per month. Under
such circumstance, the maintenance deserves to be enhanced.
5. As aforesaid, the respondent has not challenged whatever the
documents have been produced. Now, the fact remains is that in
Miscellaneous Civil Application No.381 of 2015, the learned Joint Civil
Judge Junior Division, Beed in the said application under Section 25 of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act had granted maintenance at
the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month to the applicant wife and Rs.4,000/-
per month to the daughter. The wife appears to have filed the execution
proceedings also as that maintenance is also not paid regularly. Now,
definitely, the current pay sleep shows enhancement in the salary. Note
can also be taken about the enhancement in the prices of daily
commodities. So also, the rent agreement shows that landlord is
charging Rs.6,000/- per month for the said rented premises and,
therefore, definitely it requires that some amount should be given in this
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the second
appeal is pending. We cannot ignore the order that has already been
passed regarding maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act and, therefore, taking into consideration that
amount, the applicant is entitled to get some enhancement. Amount of
Rs.15,000/- per month to the applicant wife till the hearing and final
(4)
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 08:29:45 :::
ca-11564-2018.odt
disposal of the second appeal would suffice. Further, that amount will
have to be granted from the date of this application i.e. 17.07.2018 and
not prior to that. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
I) Civil Application stands partly allowed.
II) The respondent is directed to pay amount of Rs.15,000/-
per month to applicant - Swati w/o Deepak Jogdand from the
date of the application i.e. 17.07.2018 till the final hearing and
disposal of the second appeal.
III) It is clarified that this amount is apart from the amount that
has already been granted in Miscellaneous Civil Application
No.381 of 2015.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
scm
