Bombay High Court
Shri. Babanrao S/O. Marotrao ... vs Smt. Arundhati W/O. Late Nilesh ... on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
1 41FCA28.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 28/2016
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 36 OF 2016
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 28/2016
1. Shri Babanrao S/o. Marotrao Nibrad,
aged 63 years, Occ. Retired Teacher,
2. Sau. Jyoti Babanrao Nibrad,
61, Occ. Household,
Both R/o. Lokamnya Tilak Ward,
Pancharkawda, Tq. Kelapur,
Dist. Yavatmal.
APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Smt. Arundhati w/o. Late Nilesh Nibrad,
Aged 32 yrs., Occ. Household,
2. Kumar Sarvesh S/o. Nilesh Nibrad,
aged about 1 yrs, minor through
Natural Guardian mother
Smt. Arundhati w/o. Late Nilesh Nibrad,
Both R/o. C/o. Arvind Mohirkar,
Plot No. 170, Shashtri Layout,
Khamla, Nagpur - 440 025.
RESPONDENTS/
CROSS-OBJECTORS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. Y. Deopujari, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R.M. Pande, Advocate for respondents/cros-objectors.
Mr. S.V. Purohit, Advocate (Mediator)
2 41FCA28.16.odt
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES JJ.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18.01.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Heard.
2. This appeal is preferred by the original respondent of
petition No. C-6/2014 claiming maintenance under the provisions of
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Family Court has
partially allowed the petition whereby awarded maintenance to widow
at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month and at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per
month to minor son. The appellant No. 1 i.e. father-in-law has been
directed to pay accordingly.
3. The said judgment and order of Family Court dated
08.12.2015 is subject matter of this appeal preferred by the parents-in-
law of widow. Similarly, respondent/widow has also filed cross-
objection seeking enhancement and decree of maintenance against both.
4. During pendency of this petition, this Court has shown
indulgence vide order dated 06.12.2022, and referred the matter to the
learned Mediator. This Court found it appropriate to refer the matter for
mediation since it was a domestic dispute between widow and her
parents-in-law. The parties have settled the matter before the learned
3 41FCA28.16.odt
Mediator and accordingly prepared settlement terms. The mediation
report is submitted about settlement dispute along with terms arrived in
between the parties on 10.01.2023. The terms have been signed by all
the parties, respective Advocates and by the learned Mediator Mr. S. V.
Purohit.
5. Today all parties are present before us. We have specifically
verified the contents of settlement from respondent No. 1- widow, who
has agreed the terms. She was specifically made aware about the
settlement amount and its installment to which she knows fully. The
other terms are also explained for which she has no dispute.
6. In view of above, appeal stand disposed of in the form of
terms of settlement which is marked as article 'A' along with certificate
under Order XXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We record the
settlement as a undertaking given by the respective parties to this Court.
For the sake of convenience, on request, appellant No. 1 is permitted to
deposit agreed settlement amount in this Court itself of which
respondent No. 1, widow shall be entitled for withdrawal
7. Appeal along with cross-objection stands disposed of in
above terms.
(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
JITENDRA BHARAT
BHARAT GOHANE
GOHANE Date:
2023.01.20
18:02:35
+0530
