Partly allowed

Afrin Iqbal Aga v. Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2013WP/2599/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay enhanced daughter's maintenance and mandated father to pay half the costs for his daughter's engineering education, noting insufficient lower court consideration of educational expenses despite parents' decent income and large statutory deductions.

What did the court decide?

Maintained Rs.2500/pm maintenance; directed father to pay arrears and 50% of current and future educational expenses for the daughter.

Afrin Iqbal Aga Vs Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

WP.2599/2012(1)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2599 OF 2012

¶6

Ms. Afrin Iqbal Aga ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Manish Rai a/w. Mr. Ali Naik for Petitioner Mr. Z.R. Castelino for Respondent No.1 Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 1^ST MARCH, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Rule. Made returnable forthwith.

¶14

The petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of enhancement of the maintenance granted to her initially on 20^th June, 2006. The petitioner was granted maintenance of Rs.1500/-p.m. Upon her application for modification and upon her evidence being led the maintenance has been increased to Rs.2500/-p.m vide order dated 9^th November, 2011. The petitioner considered that amount grossly inadequate. It would have to be seen whether it is so.

¶15

The petitioner's father serves in BSNL. He earns a gross salary of Rs.64,690/- p.m. he has shown deductions of Rs.23034/- therefrom. Rs.10,000/- are deducted for GPF and Rs.8300/- for society maintenance aside from the other statutory

¶16

WP.2599/2012(1)

¶17

¶18

deductions. It is seen that the father has got deducted a large sum and much more than the required statutory amount by way of GPF. It is also seen that his society charges are rather steep showing his status and standard of living.

¶19

The mother is the teacher. She earns a gross salary of Rs.44109/-. She has shown deductions of Rs.10809/- therefrom. Her deductions towards NPF is Rs.8580/-. The other are similar usual deductions statutorily required to be made. She has not shown any deductions on par with the society deductions as of the father.

¶20

Both parents are working. The father earns more. The father gets more deductions. Under these circumstances Rs.2500/- is seen to be rather meagre.

¶21

Under the provisions of Muslim Personal Laws by which parties are governed the daughter would be entitled to maintenance until she gets married or is employed.

¶22

The petitioner daughter has been studying for engineering course. The course is of 3 years diploma and thereafter she has joined degree programme. Hence she has joined directly in second year's degree programme. She is now studying for 3^rd year of the degree programme. One more year of study remains. She has shown her yearly expenses by way of the college fees.

¶23

The petitioner has annexed 4 receipts which shows the

¶24

¶25

WP.2599/2012(1)

¶26

expenses of the college as on the date of the petition. The petitioner has produced the receipts of payment of cash of Rs.7840/-, Rs.78045/- for the third year IT course of Engineering in the same college. The petitioner would have similarly to pay tuition fees for the next year of college.

¶27

The learned Judge has considered the salaries of the parents. He has also considered that the father is entitled to medical reimbursement in addition to the salary. The learned Judge has however considered that the petitioner would require educational expenses to be incurred for her studies. He has also considered that the father has two flats. In fact that is reflected in the rather steep deductions for society in his salary slip.

¶28

Having considered that the father is in easy circumstances on a good post having a fair income, medical reimbursement, two flats etc., and having considered the mother's salary as a teacher in BMC School, the learned Judge has rightly considered that both the parents must shoulder the responsibility of the child equally and enhanced the amount. However, upon such equal parental responsibility, the amount of maintenance granted is rather meagre for the reasons shown in the order. If the child's educational expenses are separately considered that amount would be fair for shoulder parental responsibility equally.

¶29

The father contended that the petitioner has been married. He has not substantiated that fact by any evidence. The father

¶30

WP.2599/2012(1)

¶31

¶32

claims that his responsibility for maintenance is up to the marriage of the petitioner. It is for the father to show her marriage. Until that time he must continue to maintain her. The father has not been maintaining the petitioner at all. The Court is informed that Rs.82,000/- by way of maintenance is in arrears. This would constitute at least 3 years' maintenance. Hence the impugned order is not complied by the father at all though it is not challenged by him also. Upon the challenge by the petitioner it is seen to be based on correct reasoning, but is without consideration of the educational expenses. The father must bear the parental responsibility equally for the educational expenses also, which aspect has not been taken care of in the order. Consequently the impugned order dated 9^th November, 2011 of learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai is required to be interfered with and modified.

¶33

The amount of maintenance shall remain to be Rs.2500/p.m. However in addition thereto the father shall pay half the amount of the expenses of the education incurred by the mother of the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner singly so far and those which would have to be incurred by her in the next year of studies. The expenses of 4 years have been annexed to the petition. The expenses of this year have been submitted to the Court.

¶34

The petitioner shall show the father the educational expenses for this year incurred by the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner shall also show the father the educational

¶35

WP.2599/2012(1)

¶36

¶37

expenses which would be incurred by the mother for the petitioner in the next year.

¶38

The respondent father shall pay the entire arrears of maintenance. He shall also pay 50% of the amount of the expenses shown in the 4 bills annexed to the petition. He shall also pay 50% of the expenses incurred by the petitioner's mother in this academic year and the expenses which will be incurred by her in the next academic year.

¶39

Rule is granted accordingly.

¶40

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Afrin Iqbal Aga v. Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afrin Iqbal Aga v. Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Singh Mansingh Rao and Ors. Vs the State of Maharasthtra and Anr.

Dr Jaydeep Rasiklal Gandhi Vs Sumati Dhiraj Joshi and Anr.

Mr Nirmal Nandkumar Sanganee and Ors. Vs Mrs. Neha Nirmal Sanganee and Anr.

Mr. Goldie Parshotam Sud Vs Mr. Ajit Sawant and Anr.

Olice Johnson Dsouza @ Olive Machado Dsouza Vs Johnson Pascol Dsouza and Ors.

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam and Ors. Vs Shubhangi Rajratna Kadam and Anr.