Bombay High Court
Samir Girish Bhatia vs Jagruti Samir Bhatia on 9 June, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:23407
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.18927 OF 2024
Samir Girish Bhatia ...Petitioner
Versus
Jagruti Samir Bhatia ...Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Vijay Dhingreja i/b VJ Juris, for the Petitioner.
Ms. S. S. Gokhale, for the Respondent.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 09 JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Dhingreja, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Ms. Gokhale, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
2. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the challenge is to the legality and validity of the
common Judgment and Order dated 25th September 2024 passed in
Petition No. Civil M.A.89/2015 and Petition No. Criminal M.A.10/2016
("impugned Order"). The operative portion of the impugned Order
reads as under :-
"1. Civil M.A.No.89/2015 is partly allowed as follows.
2. Respondent do pay maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per
month instead of Rs.40,000/- per month to petitioner
from the date of filing of Civil M.A. No.89/2015 i.e.
18.03.2015. This enhanced maintenance amount
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
includes rent.
3. The amount of maintenance paid by respondent be
adjusted in calculating the outstanding dues.
4. The prayers for separate rent and accommodation are
rejected.
5. The Criminal M.A. No.10/2016 is rejected.
6. Petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- each to her
daughters by depositing in this Court.
7. This order shall come into force only upon payment of
cost by petitioner.
8. Parties to bear their own cost.
9. Copy of this Judgment and Order be kept in Criminal
M.A. No.10/2016."
(Emphasis added)
3. At the outset, it is required to note the Order dated 15th January
2025 passed by this Court in this Writ Petition, which reads as under :-
"1. Heard Mr. Vijay Dhingreja, learned Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and Ms. Gokhale, learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent.
2. The only challenge which requires consideration is
direction issued by Judgment and Order dated 25 th September
2024 by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai in
Petition No. Civil M.A. No.89/2015 that the maintenance of
Rs.60,000/- per month is to be paid instead of Rs.40,000/-
per month from the date of filing of Civil M.A. No. 89/2015
i.e. from 18th March 2015. The relevant directions in the
impugned Order dated 25th September 2024 reads as under:
"2. Respondent do pay maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per
month instead of Rs.40,000/- per month to petitioner
from the date of filing of Civil M.A. No.89/2015 i.e.
18.03.2015. This enhanced maintenance amount
includes rent.
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
3. The amount of maintenance paid by respondent be
adjusted in calculating the outstanding dues."
3. In this behalf, it is relevant to note that by the Order
dated 17th July 2014, passed in Petition No. E-17 of 2011, the
learned Judge, Family Court granted maintenance of
Rs.40,000/- per month to the present Respondent.
Immediately on 18th March 2015, the said M.A. No.89 of 2015
has been filed seeking enhancement in maintenance.
4. The learned Judge, Family Court has granted
maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month by Order dated 17 th
July 2014 and the same has been increased to Rs.60,000/- per
month by Order dated 25th September 2024. Considering
inflation and other facts and circumstances, there is no
illegality in passing the said order granting maintenance of
Rs.60,000/- per month and the same is fair and reasonable. In
view of the same, Mr. Vijay Dhingreja, learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner,
who is present in the Court today states that he is confining
the challenge only with respect to the direction to pay the
maintenance from the date of filing of Civil M.A. and not from
the date of the Order and he is accepting the order of
maintenance granted at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month.
5. Thus the only issue which is required to be considered
in this Writ Petition is whether the enhanced maintenance can
be granted from the date of application or from the date of
the order or from any other date, in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
6. It is admitted position that the Petitioner is
maintaining both the daughters. The elder daughter is of 22
years old and the younger daughter is of 20 years old.
7. It is very clear that there are many judgments, which
specifies that the maintenance should be granted from the
date of filing of the application, but in the facts and
circumstances of this case, particularly when admittedly both
the daughters are staying with the Petitioner and they are
maintained by the Petitioner and particularly when the
application for enhancement of maintenance has been filed
within a period of eight months, the challenge to that aspect
is required to be considered. Prima facie, the learned Judge
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
should have determined when the change in circumstances
have taken place necessitating enhancement of the
maintenance.
8. Mr. Vijay Dhingreja, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner, states that w.e.f.
25th September 2024, the Petitioner is paying maintenance to
the Respondent @ Rs.60,000/- per month and that he will
continue to pay the maintenance @ Rs.60,000/-. He states
that the maintenance amount per month will be paid to the
Respondent on or before 10th day of each month. The said
statements made on instructions of the Petitioner, who is
present in the Court, are accepted as undertakings given to
this Court.
9. Accordingly for consideration of above referred
limited issue, stand over to 26th February 2025 at 2.30 p.m.
However, it is clarified that except that issue, the impugned
Order dated 25th September 2024 is fair and reasonable and
stands confirmed and it is recorded that the challenge to the
quantum of the maintenance is expressly given up by the
Petitioner."
(Emphasis added)
Thus, it is clear that the challenge to the impugned Order at the
instance of the Petitioner-husband is confined only with respect to the
direction to pay maintenance from the date of filing of Civil
Miscellaneous Application. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the
said maintenance should have been directed to be paid from the date of
the Order and not from the date of filing of Civil Miscellaneous
Application No.89 of 2015.
4. Mr. Dhingreja, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submitted that the learned Family Court on 17th July 2014 inter alia
passed the Order in Petition No. E-17 of 2011 filed by wife seeking
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("CrPC") directing payment of maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per
month. Learned Counsel submits that within a period of 8 months i.e.
on 18th March 2015, a fresh Petition bearing Petition No. Civil
M.A.89/2015 has been filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the
maintenance. He states that therefore the maintenance should have
been granted from the date of the Order and not from the date of filing
of the Petition. Mr. Dhingreja, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, to substantiate his contention, has relied on the decision of
the Supreme Court in S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C 1.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Gokhale, learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondent states that, in the facts and circumstances, maintenance
should be granted from the date of the Order and accordingly granted
by the learned Family Court. She states that maintenance which was
earlier sought in the Petition which was filed in the year 2010 and
therefore maintenance should be granted from the date of the
Application.
6. At this stage, it is required to note that several contentions are
raised by both the learned Counsels. However, as the issue for
consideration is very limited as set out in Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the
Order dated 15th January 2025 passed in this Writ Petition, namely
direction to pay maintenance from the date of filing of Civil
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2930
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
Miscellaneous Application or from the date of the Order or any other
date, other contentions are not relevant.
7. Before considering this issue, it is necessary to set out certain
factual aspects :-
i. Marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent took place on
19th July 1999.
ii. On 7th August 2002, daughter Esha was born and on 4th May
2004 daughter Riya was born.
iii. On 24th June 2010, Petition No. A-1585 of 2010 was filed by the
Petitioner seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
iv. On 23rd December 2010, Petition No. E-17 of 2011 was filed by
the Respondent under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance of
Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
v. On 17th July 2014, learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai
disposed of both Petition No. A-1585 of 2010 and Petition No. E-17 of
2011. The operative part of said Order dated 17th July 2014 reads as
under :-
"O R D E R
1 Petition No. A-1585 of 2010 is partly allowed.
2 The marriage dated 19th June 1999 solemnized
between the petitioner and the respondent is hereby declared
as dissolved under Sec.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
3 The permanent custody of elder daughter viz. Esha
born on 7th August 2002 has already crossed over to the
petitioner Samir. The permanent custody of younger daughter
Riya born on 4th May 2004 is also granted to the petitioner
Samir with immediate effect.
5 The petitioner-husband to pay maintenance inclusive
of rent @ Rs.40,000/- per month with effect from
01/07/2014 to the respondent wife.
6 The petitioner husband also to pay litigation expenses
of Rs.15,000/- to the wife and bear his own.
7 The respondent wife shall be entitled to access as
already agreed and regularly acted upon i. e. every alternate
Saturdays-Sundays with over night stay and 50% vacations
and 50% on birthdays of the daughters and the respondent
wife herself."
(Emphasis added)
Thus, the learned Judge, Family Court, Mumbai directed maintenance
inclusive of rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- to be paid to Respondent
No.1 with effect from 1st July 2014. However, it is significant to note
the discussion of the learned Judge in Paragraph No.36 regarding
maintenance, which reads as under :-
"36 The issue and point under consideration are in respect
of final order. The husband is entitled to divorce under Sec.
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, so also for
permanent custody of the younger daughter Riya. As against
this, the wife is entitled to maintenance, residence and access.
As far as quantum is concerned, she prayed for Rs.10,000/-
per month for herself and both the daughters. There is no
amendment to the said pleading. After handing over
permanent custody of both the daughters to the husband, said
maintenance amount would shrink. Nevertheless one cannot
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
forget price rise in last couple of years and attaining
circumstances the husband at present is paying Rs.16,000/-
per month towards rent so also without any court's order
Rs.6500/-per month towards maintenance to the wife.
Questions of increased rent and change of rented premises are
also there. The wife will have to maintain the daughters every
alternative Saturday-Sundays, 50% vacation periods etc.
Wife's application under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 is also pending. The wife's Petition No. B-25 of 201 for
injunction and possession of the premises at Andheri (West)
Mumbai is also pending. Since that premises does not belong
to the husband himself, the petition would frustrate. Taking
stock of the circumstances, so also earning potentiality of the
wife, I am of the view that maintenance @ Rs.40,000/-per
month with effect from 01/07/2014 inclusive of rent amount
would meet the real ends of Justice. As far as litigation
expenses are concerned, an amount of Rs.15,000/- needs to
be awarded to the wife by directing the husband to bear his
own expenses."
(Emphasis added)
vi. The above referred Order dated 17th July 2014 concerning
Petition No. E-17 of 2011 was challenged in this Court by filing
Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2015. The said Criminal
Revision Application No.17 of 2015 was dismissed by Order dated 20th
January 2015 passed by a learned Single Judge. It is required to be
noted that both the learned Judge, Family Court as well as the learned
Single Judge who has passed the Order dated 20th January 2015, have
assumed that the Petitioner has only sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
per month and inspite of that the learned Family Court has granted
Rs.40,000/- per month and therefore the learned Single Judge, while
passing the Order dated 20th January 2015, has not interfered in the
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
said Order. It is admitted position that the Respondent has sought
maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and both the learned Judge,
Family Court and learned Single Judge of this Court erroneously
assumed that the maintenance sought by Respondent-wife was
Rs.10,000/- per month instead of 1,00,000/- per month.
vii. It is further significant to note that the Criminal Application
No.35 of 2015 was filed in said Criminal Revision Application No.17 of
2015 in this Court seeking recall of the said Order dated 20th January
2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Revision
Application No.17 of 2015 . The main ground for recall of said Order
was that both the learned Judge Family Court and the learned Single
Judge of this Court have assumed that the maintenance sought was only
Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
viii. It is significant to note that the learned Single Judge has recalled
the said Order dated 20th January 2015 by Order dated 5 th February
2015 passed in Criminal Application No.35 of 2015. The relevant
observations of the learned Single Judge in Order dated 5th February
2015 passed in Criminal Application No.35 of 2015 in Criminal Revision
Application No.17 of 2015, read as under :-
"14. For all these reasons, I am more than satisfied that in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court
committed a clerical or arithmetical error while dismissing the
Revision Application on the premise that the applicant had
claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. In
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
view thereof, the order dated 20.1.2015 is recalled. Rule is
made absolute accordingly.
15. Ms. Sarnaik, upon taking instructions from the
applicant who is present in the Court, states that she may be
permitted to withdraw the Revision Application with a liberty
to take out appropriate application before the Family Court
for recalling the order dated 17.7.2014 passed in Petition No.
E-17 of 2011. Mr. Chaturvedi states that respondent no.1 is
also present in the Court.
16. In view thereof, by consent of the parties, Criminal
Revision Application No.17 of 2015 is taken on Board. On the
motion made by Ms. Sarnaik, Revision Application No.17 of
2015 is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty as prayed for.
All contentions on merits of the parties on the proposed
Application are kept open. The Family Court will decide the
Application uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
All the parties including the Family Court to act on the
authenticated copy of this order."
(Emphasis added)
ix. Thus, it is clear that the learned Single Judge recalled said
Order dated 20th January 2015 and granrted liberty to file
application before learned Judge, Family Court to recall said
Order dated 17th July 2014. Pursuant to said liberty granted by
the learned Single Judge by Order dated 5 th February 2015, the
Respondent filed on 18th March 2015 Petition No. Civil M.A.89 of
2015 under Section 127 of CrPC for enhancement of the
maintenance.
x. On 4th January 2016, the Petitioner filed Petition No.
Criminal M.A.10 of 2016 under Section 127 of CrPC for reduction
of the maintenance amount.
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
xi. Both these Petitions have been disposed of by the impugned
Order dated 25th September 2024 by inter alia directing that
instead of maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month, Rs.60,000/-
per month be directed to be paid by the Petitioner to the
Respondent with effect from the date of filing of said Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.89 of 2015 i.e. 18th March 2015.
8. As already noted earlier, the only issue which requires
consideration is the date from which the maintenance at the enhanced
rate of Rs.60,000/- per month is required to be granted. The said issue
is required to be decided in the light of the above factual aspects.
9. The Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh v. Neha 2 has
considered this issue from Paragraph Nos.95 to 113. The relevant
discussion is in Paragraph Nos.109 to 113, which reads as under :-
"109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views
of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance
must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is
conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from
the date of application or from the date of the order in
Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant
maintenance from the date of application in all cases,
including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the
provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is
significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim
maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the
interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded
from the date of the application.
2 (2021) 2 SCC 324
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak
[Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC
632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Court held that the
entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain
date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal
of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the
date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
[Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015)
3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] , this Court held
that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that
case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the
case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human
rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an
individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would
require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of
application.
111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date
of application finds its roots in the object of enacting
maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome
the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the
husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper
their capacity to be effectively represented before the court. In
order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to
destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from
the date on which the application for maintenance is filed
before the court concerned.
112. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v.
Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Civ) 51], the Supreme Court was considering the
interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p.
196, para 13)
"13.3. ... purposive interpretation needs to be given to the
provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the
application of a destitute wife or hapless children or
parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the
marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision,
enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The
Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that
we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law
to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights
achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the
bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social
justice. While giving interpretation to a particular
provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between
the law and society."
(emphasis supplied)
113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions
to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders
passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be
awarded from the date on which the application was made
before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance
must date back to the date of filing the application, since the
period during which the maintenance proceedings remained
pending is not within the control of the applicant."
(Emphasis added)
Thus, what the Supreme Court has held that maintenance be awarded
from the date on which the application was made before the court
concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date
of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance
proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the
applicant.
10. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh
(supra), it is necessary to consider the Judgment in the case of S
Vijikumari (supra) on which Mr. Dhingreja, learned Counsel appearing
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
for the Petitioner has relied. He has more particularly relied on
Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the said decision, which read as under :-
"14. However, for the invocation of Section 25(2) of the
Act, there must be a change in the circumstances after the
order being passed under the Act. Alexander Sambath Abner
v. Miron Lede, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 2851 is also to the same
effect. Thus, an order for alteration, modification or
revocation operates prospectively and not retrospectively.
Though the order for grant of a maintenance is effective
retrospectively from the date of the application or as ordered
by the Magistrate, the position is different with regard to an
application for alteration in an allowance, which may
incidentally be either an increase or a reduction - to take
effect from a date on which the order of alteration is made or
any other date such as from the date on which an application
for alteration, modification or revocation was made
depending on the facts of each case.
15. The position is analogous to Sections 125 and 127 of
the CrPC, 1973, wherein the legislature under Section 125(2)
of the CrPC, 1973 had given power to the Magistrate to grant
maintenance from the date of the application, but did not give
any such power under Section 127 of the CrPC, 1973.
Therefore, under the Act, the order of alteration or
modification or revocation could operate from the date of the
said application being filed or as ordered by the Magistrate
under Section 25(2) of the Act. Thus, the applicant cannot
seek its retrospective applicability, so as to seek a refund of
the amount already paid as per the original order."
11. Mr. Dhingreja, learned Counsel submits that as far as the decision
in the case of Rajnesh (supra) is concerning the initial application,
however, the decision in S Vijikumari (supra) is concerning Section 127
of CrPC i.e. change in maintenance amount in view of the change of
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
circumstances. He submits that, in fact, the said Judgment is concerning
Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 ("DV Act"), however, the said provision is similar to Section 127 of
CrPC. Said Section 127 of CrPC reads as under :-
"127. Alteration in allowance.--[(1) On proof of a change in
the circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 125
a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a
monthly allowance for the maintenance, or interim
maintenance, to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case
may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he
thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or the interim
maintenance, as the case may be.]
(2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence
of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made
under Section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall
cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same
accordingly.
(3) Where any order has been made under Section 125 in
favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained
a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is
satisfied that--
(a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce,
remarried, cancel such order as from the date of her
remarriage;
(b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and
that she has received, whether before or after the date
of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under
any customary or personal law applicable to the
parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such
order,--
(i) in the case where such sum was paid before such
order, from the date on which such order was
made,
(ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
period, if any, for which maintenance has been
actually paid by the husband to the woman;
(c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband
and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to
[maintenance or interim maintenance, as the case may
be] after her divorce, cancel the order from the date
thereof.
(4) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any
maintenance or dowry by any person, to whom a [monthly
allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or
any of them has been ordered] to be paid under Section 125,
the Civil Court shall take into account the sum which has
been paid to, or recovered by, such person [as monthly
allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or
any of them, as the case may be, in pursuance of] the said
order."
(Emphasis added)
12. It is required to be noted that even the decision in S Vijikumari
(supra) on which learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has
heavily relied also held that though the order for grant of a
maintenance is effective retrospectively from the date of the application
or as ordered by the Magistrate, the position is different with regard to
an application for alteration in an allowance, which may incidentally be
either an increase or a reduction - to take effect from a date on which
the order of alteration is made or any other date such as from the date
on which an application for alteration, modification or revocation was
made depending on the facts of each case. Therefore, in the decision of
S Vijikumari (supra), it is not held that in any circumstances the
enhancement order passed under Section 127 shall come into effect
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
only from the date of the order. It has been held that it depends on the
facts and circumstances of the case and the same can also be from the
date of application.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh
(supra) as well as S Vijikumari (supra), it is relevant to note the
following facts of this case:-
(i) Admittedly in Petition No. E-17 of 2011 filed by the wife under
Section 125 of CrPC which has been filed on 23rd December 2010 a
prayer was made seeking maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
(ii) On 17th July 2014 said Petition was allowed by directing
maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. However, it is required to be
noted that said Rs.40,000/- per month was granted as the learned
Judge of the Family Court assumed that maintenance sought was only
Rs.10,000/-.
(iii) Said Order dated 17th July 2014 of the learned Family Court has
been challenged by filing Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2015
and a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said Revision by
Order dated 20th January 2015 on the same assumption that only
Rs.10,000/- per month was sought by the wife and inspite of the same
what Rs.40,000/- per month was granted by the learned Family Court.
(iv) Thereafter, as noted herein above said Order has been recalled by
Order dated 5th February 2015 by learned Single Judge by giving
01-WP-18927-2024.doc
liberty to the Respondent to file a fresh application and accordingly the
fresh application has been filed on 18th March 2015.
(v) One more aspect which is required to be taken into consideration
is that although wife has filed enhancement application on 18th March
2015, the said application has been disposed of on 25th September
2024 i.e. after a period of about 9 years.
14. Thus, the observations in the decision of Rajnesh (supra) as set
out hereinabove are squarely applicable to this case. Even on the
touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S
Vijikumari (supra) also, the date on which enhancement should take
effect can be the date of the order or the date of the application,
depending on the facts of each case.
15. Thus, in the facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, no interference in the impugned Order is
warranted under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
16. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as
to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
