The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order enhancing monthly maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court held the trial judge's order was well-reasoned and not open to interference.
Appeal dismissed in limine; record and proceedings sent back to the trial court.
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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2009
Pradip Madhubhai Mehta, age 43 years, ) temporarily residing at 303, Shilpa Apartment, ) Jadusha Nagar, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 ) through his Constituted Attorney Mr. Nilesh Himmatlal ) Kamdar, age 40 years, Occ. Business, residing at ) 2/A-104, Unity Apartment, Damodar Park, ) Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 )..Appellant
versus
Mrs. Alpa Pradip Mehta, ) Age 38 years, Occ. Housewife, ) C/o. Suresh D. Sanghani, A-403, Supriya Sector -5 ) Charkop, Kandivali, Mumbai-400 084 )..Respondent
Mr. Uday P.Warunjikar for the appellant. Ms. Kalpana Kanhere, instructed by M/s. Juris Matrix, for the respondent.
CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR &
R.V. MORE, JJ.
DATE: OCTOBER 08, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per P.B. Majmudar, J. )
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd
December, 2008, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 187 of 2007. By the impugned order, the
-2-
learned Judge, while entertaining the application preferred by the wife under Section 25 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, modified the earlier order dated 31st January, 2007 by directing the appellant-husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from December,2008 onwards.
-3-
husband in this appeal.
-4-
to face. Mr. Warunjikar further submitted that he has received instructions from the appellant that the appellant is without any job at present in U.IK. and he is not having any income worth the name there. Mr. Warunjikar submitted that alternatively the enhanced amount of maintenance may be reduced suitably as considerable rise in maintenance has been given by the learned trial Judge by increasing the maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-.
-5-
“4. Petitioner states that she has one son, viz. Meet – aged about 14 years, studying in IX Standard and she has to maintain him and bear all the expenses such as his school fees, tuition fees, books, stationery, medical and other miscellaneous expenses. Apart from this, the petitioner is required to bear additional expenses such as school picnics, sports, conveyance, birthday feast, term fees, extracurricular activities, entertainment, etc . The petitioner is required to maintain herself and bear all the expenses for herself such as food, medicine, house rent, electricity charges, phone charges, mediclaim, conveyance, fitness, etc. As such it becomes virtually impossible for the petitioner to make both the ends meet within the amount of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. granted to each of them.
-6-
after considering the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to get additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month for which cogent reasons have been given in the judgment. It is required to be noted that the respondent-wife is required to spend for her son’s school fees, tuition fees, etc. It has been pointed out that she is required to spend a considerable amount of Rs. 60,000/- per year towards lease rent. The break-up of the expenses in this behalf has been given in her evidence tendered before the Family Court in the form of an affidavit. The break up of the expenditure of the wife and her son is given in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit. Nothing substantial has been brought out in her cross-examination.
-7-
business was only for one month, however, he admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that the said business was carried on only for one month. The witness has stated that on the next date he would be able to produce his passport in the Court but it seems that he has not produced the same before the Court. In para 20 of his cross-examination he has admitted that after returning to India in the month of March-April, 2007, he deposited an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the arrears of maintenance. He has admitted that he is not having any relatives in U.K.
-8-
“26. As can be seen further from the evidence of the respondent, he has stated that before going to U.K. He was doing his business in the name and style as “International Tour and Trekkers”. He was also supplying scientific instrument and also supplying oxygen cylinders to Mansarovar via. Nepal. The respondent has also admitted to the facts that he used to travel to Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet and he had visited U.K. On number of occasions. In this respect, it is required to be considered as to why a person would go abroad on tourist visas 10 to 15 times especially when he was not getting employment abroad or was it for fun. Further assuming that the respondent had no job abroad what was the necessity for him to go abroad 10 to 15 times and spend his money especially when he was living on the income of others and who gave him the money to go abroad not once but 10 to 15 times is not stated. The expenses regarding these trips i.e. Flight conveyance and boarding and lodging etc. how it effected if the respondent had no income. He has further denied that he was working in a hotel or had any job. However, the fact remains that as admitted by him 10 to 15 times he has gone to U. K. on tourist visas. Further as far as the respondent is concerned, he has stated that he returned to India and was in Mumbai. Presently, he is unemployed and has no source of income. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has not registered his name with the employment exchange or he was not drawing/getting any employment allowance from the Government.
-9-
-10-
We, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. Record and proceedings be sent to the trial Court forthwith.
P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.
R.V. MORE, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhanced maintenance order by the trial court should be interfered with as there were insufficient changes in circumstances.
Whether the appellant failed to prove his income and ability to meet the increased maintenance liability.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradip Madhubhai Mehta
Mrs. Alpa Pradip Mehta
P.B. MAJMUDAR
R.V. MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
