Dismissed

Anil Harishchandra Pawar v. Neelam Anil Pawar

Bombay HC11 Jul 2005FCA/43/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Family Court's enhancement of maintenance for the wife and minor son under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The High Court held that material circumstances had changed due to salary increase and inflation. The appeal was dismissed, finding no error in the enhanced award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the order of the Family Court Judge is affirmed without interference.

Anil Harishchandra Pawar Vs Neelam Anil Pawar — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2002.

¶4

Anil Harischandra Pawar, Age: 41 years, Occu: Service, R/a: Pawar House, Opp. St. Anthony’s Church, Mankhurd, Mumbai - 400 088. ..Appellant.

¶5

Versus.

¶6

Neelam Anil Pawar, Age: 38 years, Occu: Housewife, Hindu Indian Inhabitant, Presently r/a Jari Mari Nagar, Shivaji Colony, Kalyan (E), Dist: Thane. ..Respondent.

¶7

Mrs. Suvarna Telgote for the appellants.

¶8

Mr. A. G. Toraskar for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.R.SATHE JJ

¶10

DATE: JULY 11, 2005.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.R.Sathe,J.): -

¶12

1.		The	appellant - or	iginal	responden	t in
Miscellaneous	Appl	ication	No.55	of	2001		has	preferred
this appeal	against	the	judgement	a	nd or	der	passed	by the
Family C	ourt	Judge	at Band	ra,	whereby		the	application
filed by	the	wife	was allo	wed	and	main	tenance	granted to
wife and	s	on as	Rs.600/-	and	Rs.40	0/-	respectively	was
enhanced	to	Rs.1500/	- and	Rs.	1000/-	res	pectively	(in all
Rs.2,500/-)	per	month.	It	was	an		application	under

:2:

Maintenance

Act,

section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and

¶17

1956 (For the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred

¶18

to as "the said Act".)

¶19

The facts giving rise to this appeal are few

¶20

and simple:

¶21

. The wife had filed an application for

¶22

maintenance	u	nder	sectio	ns 18	&	20 of	the	said Ac	t in
which	both	parti	es	filed	conse	nt	terms	whereby	they
agreed	that	hu	sband	would	pay	mainte	nance	of	Rs.600/-
p.m.	to	wife	and	Rs.400/-	p.m.	to	son.	The	consent
terms	were	entered	into	on	21st	January	1997.	It	seems

¶23

that as there was change in the circumstances, the wife

¶24

filed application under section 25 of the said Act.

¶25

The only point is: whether there is material

¶26

change	in	the	circu	mstanc	es as	a	result	of whi	ch it	is
necessary	to	in	crease		in	the	m	aintenance		amount.
Admittedly,	at	the		time	when	the	con	sent	terms	were
drawn,	the	salary		of	the h	usband	wa	s Rs	.8,000/-	per
month.	Ad	mittedly,		the	reafter		when	th	e	second
application	was	fi	led	in	the	year	2002	after	about	5
years	from	the	initial	o	rder,	there	was	increase	in	the
salary	of	the	hus	band.		Besides	this,	there	was	also
increase	in	the		price	s as	also	the	total	ex	penditure

¶27

required for the maintenance of the wife and the minor

¶28

son.

¶29

:3:

¶30

4.	Both sides have not adduced any evidence, and
relied	upon the salary slip of the husband attached	with
the	written statement. It is the contention of	the
husband	that he is getting the salary of Rs.11,440/-	per
month	and out of that, about Rs.8,645/- per month	are
deducted	and there is no sufficient amount available	for
him	to pay the enhanced maintenance. However, if	we
carefully	peruse the salary slip, it appears that	an
amount	of Rs.2,975/- has been deducted towards the	Credit
Society.	Besides, there is another amount of R	s.2,000/-
shown	as deduction towards the Credit	Society.
Rs.1,318/-	is shown as deduction towards the P	rovident
Fund.	The husband has not brought on record anythin	g to
show	that for what purpose the loan was taken from	the
society	and he is required to pay such huge in	stalments
to	the society. Probably, it may be with a view to	show
that	he is getting less amount in hand thereby	depriving
the	wife from getting enhancement in maintenance.	Be
that	as it may, the husband was getting an amount	of
Rs.11,440/	- per month in the year 2001 from the	second
salary	slip, which is brought on record, it is clear	that
the	present salary of the appellant - husband	is
Rs.13,715/	-. It is needless to say that after the	year
1997,	there is rise in the prices and the cost of	living
has	also gone high. Besides this, the son is	also
studying	in 9th standard. So obviously there must	be

¶31

				:4:
some	increase	in	the	educa	tional	ex	penses	of	the	son.
Though	it	is t	ried	to be	cont	ended	on	behalf	of	the
husband	that	appl	icant	- wi	fe	is	having	some	source	of
income,	the	husband	has	not		actually	add	uced	any	evidence
in that	behalf,	as	a	result	of	the	same	the	learned	trial

¶32

Judge has also only taken into consideration the salary

¶33

received by the husband.

¶34

5.			It is true that the other son o	f the	parties
is	residing	with	the husband.	Besi	des this,	his		mother
and	two	unmarri	ed sisters are depende	nt	on him.		It	has
also	come	on	record that the o	ppon	ent is re	sidin	g in	the
house	of his	mot	her for which he	is	not requ	ired	to	spend
anything	.	On	the other hand, the	w	ife is resi	ding	in	a
rented	premi	ses	for which she has		to spend	some		amount
out	of	maint	enance amount. Hav	ing	regard to	a	ll	these
facts,	the	tria	l Judge has	enha	nced the		mai	ntenance
amount	per	month	from Rs.600/- to		Rs.1,500/- f	or	the	wife
and	for	the	child from Rs.400/-	t	o Rs.1,000/-.			Taking
into	considerat	ion	the above mentio	ned	material		change	in
the	circumstanc	es,	by no stretch of		imagination	it	can	be
said	that	the	quantum of maintena	nce	fixed by		the	Family

¶35

Judge is exorbitant. We do not find that there is any

¶36

error in the order passed by the Family Court Judge.

¶37

The learned advocate for the appellant - husband tried to urge before this court that the

¶38

:5:

¶39

application filed by the wife wa	s in	fact n	o	t	te	nable	and
she ought to have filed a	separate	suit		f	or	enhan	cement.
Not only that in order to	substantiate	the			conten	tion	she
relied on a ruling reported in	AIR-1965	CALC		U	TTA	228	(in
the matter of Menokabala D	asi v/s.	P	a	n	chanan		Seal).
However, it is an admitted	position	that a	t		the		relevant
time the Family Courts Act wa	s not	applicabl	e.			M	oreover,
the learned trial Judge has	also con	sidered			this		aspect
and has correctly observed tha	t as pe	r	t	h	e	pro	cedure,
that has been laid down under	the F	amily	C	o	urts	Act,	for
fling the petition, the im	pugned a	pplication			file	d	under
section 25 of the said Act	is	rightly			numb	ered	as
"Miscellaneous Application No. 55	of 2001".		S	o	,	we	are
of the view that there was	no substan	ce in			the	co	ntention

¶40

raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband

¶41

in this behalf.

¶42

In this view of the matter, there is no

¶43

substance in the appeal. We do not intend to interfere

¶44

with the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge.

¶45

Hence appeal is dismissed.

¶46

(S.R.SATHE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

¶47

:srp/2005/

Anil Harishchandra Pawar v. Neelam Anil Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Harishchandra Pawar v. Neelam Anil Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Prakash Haswani Vs Prakash P.Haswani

Khushbu Kamlesh Doshi Vs Kamlesh Rashiklal Doshi

Khushbu Kamlesh Doshi Vs Kamlesh Rashiklal Doshi

Vanamala Dayanand Dimble Vs Dayanand Dashrath Dimble

M/S. Pancham Aquaculture Farms Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board

Jagdeep Ishwar Mulani Vs Jalpa Jagdeep Mulani