In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge to a decree awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/-. The Court held that the amount was not excessive given the appellant's income and the high cost of living, and no substantial question of law arose.
Second appeal dismissed; Civil Application no. 4269/2007 does not survive.
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, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2010
Soma s/o Kisan Sonawane
.. APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Sau. Pratibha Soma Sonawane
.. RESPONDENT
Shri B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.V. Rakh, Advocate holding for Shri G.V. Wani, Advocate for the respondent.
=====
CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 12th JULY, 2010.
PER COURT :
A.V. Rakh holding for Shri G.V. Wani, Advocate for the respondent.
Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Jalgaon in Special Civil Suit no. 123/1998 decided
on 21-7-2006 whereby monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- was
2
awarded from the date of the suit and amount of Rs.36,000/- was
awarded as arrears of maintenance for previous 36 months which judgment and decree is further confirmed in Civil Appeal no. 215/2006
decided by the District Judge -2, Jalgaon on 30-11-2009.
3 It is no more disputed that the marriage between appellant and
respondent was solemnised on 22-5-1991. For six months, respondent
lived with the appellant. However, they could not happily live
together. In1995, respondent/ wife filed Misc. Criminal Application no.
158/1995 for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. She also filed HMP no. 363/95 for restitution of conjugal
rights which was subsequently withdrawn. However, application
under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and
amount of Rs.800/- per month was awarded as maintenance.
Thereafter on 16-3-1998, respondent filed Special Civil Suit no.
123/1998 for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act. She also claimed amount of Stridhan. The learned
Civil Judge allowed the claim for maintenance as stated earlier and
3
rejected the claim in respect of recovery of Stridhan. Said judgment and decree is further challenged in appeal. Learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. Therefore this second appeal.
4 It does not appear that the present appellant has filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights. So in the circumstances, this second appeal can be considered only to the extent of quantum of maintenance. Shri Kedar, advocate for the appellant argued that
the courts have taken into consideration salary certificates for February, March and April 2003. They have not considered the salary as in the year 1998 when the suit was filed or salary of the year 1995 from when the claim of past maintenance was made. He also argued that the mother of appellant is suffering from illness and she requires Rs.2,000/- per month. So according to him, the amount awarded is excessive and exorbitant. On the other hand, Adv. Shri
Rakh, holding for Shri G.V. Wagh, advocate for the respondent argued
that the order is rightly passed. He drew my attention to the judgment
of the trial court and submitted that though in the suit respondent
4
claims that salary of the defendant / appellant was Rs.6459/- per
month and that he owns house and landed property, there is no denial on the quantum of salary in the written statement by the defendant / appellant. So even if, Rs.6457/- was taken to be salary in the year 1998, the quantum of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- cannot be
said to be excessive or exorbitant. He also pointed out that as observed by the appellate court, so also by the trial court, 7/12 extract exh. 47 shows that defendant / appellant has half share in 1 H 17 Are land. So appellant has some income from the landed property. It is not disputed that he has old mother. No medical certificate or medical bills were produced on record to show the average expenditure of treatment of his mother or nature of her illness.
5 Considering the totality of circumstances, amount of Rs.1,000/cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant in these days of high prices. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
5
6 In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application no. 4269/2007
does not survive.
( P. R. BORKAR J.)
dyb/office/sa199.10.odt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded at Rs.1,000/- is excessive or exorbitant.
Whether any substantial question of law arises regarding the maintenance decree in the second appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Soma s/o Kisan Sonawane
Sau. Pratibha Soma Sonawane
P. R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
