Civil application by husband to reduce monthly maintenance post-retirement. The court found the existing grant sufficient and refused reduction despite husband's pending pension disputes.
The civil application seeking reduction of monthly maintenance was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2766 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 52 OF 1998
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. JUNE 08, 2007.
Heard Ms. Ruikar, learned counsel for the appellant – wife and Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the respondent/ applicant – husband.
The respondent has moved this application for reducing the amount of monthly maintenance because of his retirement on superannuation on 30.6.2006. Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel states that the provident fund, gratuity and other retirement dues are still not released because of service dispute pending before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He further states that a marriageable daughter is residing with the respondent – husband only and he has to incur expenditure for her
2
education and marriage also. It is argued that presently the respondent is getting provisional pension of Rs.4,500/- per month and paying monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to appellant – wife from it is impossible as in balance amount the respondent is not in a position to look after himself and his daughter.
Ms. Ruikar, learned counsel for the appellant – wife contends that in First Appeal filed by the respondent, interim orders are obtained on the condition that monthly maintenance will be paid regularly. She further states that because of his retirement on superannuation, the respondent – husband has received substantial amount on account of gratuity, provident fund and other terminal benefits.
After hearing parties, we find that Respondent – husband is not ready to part with the proportionate amount in favour of the appellant – wife from terminal benefits or from provident fund or gratuity and is only seeking reduction in monthly maintenance. The amount of Rs.1,500/- granted to the wife towards her maintenance is just sufficient.
3
There are no grounds to reduce it.
Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel states that unless and until the appellant – wife approaches the respondent – husband for one time settlement, there is no question of respondent – husband parting with any amount in her favour.
We are not inclined to reduce the amount of monthly maintenance granted to the appellant – wife. Civil Application is dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
*GS.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the monthly maintenance amount granted to the wife should be reduced in light of the husband's retirement and pending service disputes.
Whether terminal benefits, gratuity, or provident fund received by the husband can be used to reduce the wife's maintenance.
Whether the current maintenance grant is sufficient or excessive relative to the husband's diminished income.
Wife
Husband
J.P. Devadhar
B.P. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
