Dismissed

Shri Jaykumar Babgounda Patil v. Smt. Veena Jaykumar Patil

Bombay HC2 Apr 2009FCA/59/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by husband challenging maintenance awarded upon dissolution of marriage due to cruelty. Court held maintenance liability persists regardless of husband's unemployment or illness, dismissing the appeal and affirming payments to wife and son.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs.800/month to wife and Rs.500/month to son affirmed; deposited amount of Rs.25,000 allowed to be withdrawn.

Shri Jaykumar Babgounda Patil Vs Smt. Veena Jaykumar… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

srk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

Family Court Appeal No.59 of 2001

¶5

With

¶6

Civil Application No.143 of 2001

¶7

Shri Jaykumar Babgounda Patil

¶8

Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Sou. Veena Jaykumar Patil Respondent

¶11

Ms.Archana Kolagi for appellant.

¶12

Mr.Mahesh Subramanyam i/b. Mr.S.V.Pitre for respondent.

¶13

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & RAVI K.DESHPANDE,JJ.

¶14

April 2, 2009.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

¶16

This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arises from the judgment and order dated 25/9/2000 rendered by the Family Court at Pune to the extent of granting monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/per month to the respondent -

¶17

wife and Rs.500/- per month to the son till he attains

¶18

majority.

¶19

2.	The	parties were	married	on 10/	8/1990 acc	ording
to the	H	indu relig	ion	and	customs	and	from the	said
wedlock	they	begot	a	son	on	30/	1/1993.	Petition
No.A-722	of	1994	was	file	d by	the	husband	seeking
divorce	under	Section	13(	1)(i-a)	of	the	Hindu	Marriage

¶20

¶21

Act, 1955 ("the Act" for short) i.e. on the ground of cruelty. The wife in her Written Statement at Exhibit 14 and opposed the petition for divorce and alleged that she was treated with cruelty by the husband and the mother-in-law. In support of his claim for divorce the appellant examined himself as PW 1, his mother as PW 2 and Nirmala Jemines - PW 3. The wife

¶22

stepped in the witness box to oppose the petition and

¶23

examined Shri Devendra Varoor - DW 2.

¶24

On consideration of the pleadings including the evidence, the Family Court was pleased to hold that the charge of cruelty against the wife was proved and the wife could not prove the charge of cruelty against her husband or the members of his family. Consequently the marriage between the parties came to be dissolved under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. While dissolving the marriage the Family Court fixed the amount of maintenance as noted hereinabove and in this appeal the challenge is only limited to the

¶25

directions to pay maintenance for the wife as well as the minor son.

¶26

Ms.Kolagi, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the

¶27

¶28

observati	ons in par	a 21 of	the impugned order	and
submitte	d that wh	en the appell	ant did not have	any
source	of income	of his own	, the Family Court	could
not	have granted	any maint	enance while dissolving	the
marriage	. It	is clear from	the impugned order	that
the	wife had	filed an appli	cation at Exhibit 17	and
prayed	for interim	alimony at	Rs.3000/- per month	for
herself	and the	son. Th	is application was	partly
allowed	and the	Family Court	was pleased to direc	t to
pay	an amount of	Rs.3000/- per	month to the wife	and
Rs.200/-	per month	to the	son by way of	interim
maintena	nce. The	Family Cou	rt noted that the	husband
was	suffering from	epilepsy and	was not earning at	the
time	of marriage	and even t	hereafter. He was	being
maintain	ed by his	parents and	was intending to	start
some	business with a	view to st	and on his own and	with
the	support of	the investments	to be made by	his
parents.	Cons	idering these	obtaining circum	stances,
the	Family Court th	ought it fit	to raise the amoun	t of
Rs.300/-	to Rs.800/-	for the w	ife and from Rs.200/	- to
Rs.500/-	for the	son by way	of monthly maintenanc	e in
lieu	of permanent	alimony.	Once the marriage	between
the	parties was	admitted,	it becomes	the
responsib	ility of the	husband to	maintain the wife	and
the	child. It ca	nnot be acce	pted in law that if	the

¶29

¶30

husband is	unemployed or if he has no	so	urce	of
income, he	is not required to pay maintena	nce to		the
wife and	the son who are totally dependent	upon		him.
It is not	the case of the appellant that	the	wife	has
any other so	urce of income. On the other	hand,	it	has
come on	record that the petitioner’s	fathe	r	had
immovable pro	perties which came to be disp	osed	off	and
the proceeds	to some extent have been rei	nvested.		The
appellant	is presently staying with his m	other	and	in
their own	house at Pune. The mother is	a	pen	sioner.
The arrears	of maintenance have not been	cleared		and
an amount	of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited	with		the
Registry of	this Court. The mother of	the	ap	pellant
filed an	affidavit explaining the finan	cial	con	ditions
of the	family and stated that she has no	sou	rce	of
income an	d, therefore, the appellant is	incapable		of
paying ma	intenance amount. The respondent	has		filed
additional	affidavit and pointed out the	disposal		of
various i	mmovable properties held by the		app	ellant’s
father.	In the rejoinder the appellant’s	mother		has
admitted some	sale transactions and investm	ents	in	the

¶31

flat. We, therefore, do not accept the contentions

¶32

that the appellant is on the streets.

¶33

Hence we do not find any merit in the challenge

¶34

¶35

raised against the order directing to pay maintenance of Rs.800/per month to the wife and Rs.500/per

¶36

month to the son and consequently this appeal fails

¶37

and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.

¶38

The deposited amount is hereby allowed to be

¶39

withdrawn by the respondent.

¶40

Civil Application does not survive and it

¶41

stands disposed.

¶42

(RAVI K. DESHPANDE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Shri Jaykumar Babgounda Patil v. Smt. Veena Jaykumar Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Jaykumar Babgounda Patil v. Smt. Veena Jaykumar Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Pandharinath Babu Govari D/H Taibai Pandharinath Govari and Ors.

Leelabai Shankarrao Bhapkar and Othrs Vs Madhavrao Maruti Bhapkar D.H. Shushila Madhav Bhapkar

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kalpana Sarjerao Dhekane and Othrs

Shekhar Bhai Thakur Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Dinesh P. Satynarayanana Vs Charu Dinesh Satyanarayanana

Laxmidas Arjun Bhansali Vs Gangabai Laxmidas Bhansali