Allowed

Mrs. Jharna @ Jagruti Yogesh Mehta v. Mr. Yogesh Anantrai Mehta

Bombay HC18 Dec 2014CAM/154/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a family court appeal regarding maintenance and education expenses, the High Court directed the respondent to pay 15,000 monthly for the elder son's education till completion of studies, continued existing maintenance for the second son, allowed insurance benefits, but rejected a rent enhancement prayer.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay Rs.15,000 monthly for elder son's education till completion and continue maintenance for younger son; insurance proceeds ensured; rent enhancement prayer rejected.

Mrs. Jharna @ Jagruti Yogesh Mehta Vs Mr… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

cam-154.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2014

¶5

¶6

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.57 OF 2013

¶7

Jharna Alias Jagruti Yogesh Mehta.

¶8

.. Applicant

¶9

In the matter between

¶10

Jharna Alias Jagruti Yogesh Mehta.

¶11

Vs Yogesh Anantrai Mehta.

¶12

.. Appellant (Org.Respondent)

¶13

.. Respondent (Org.Petitioner)

¶14

Shri Prakash Ganpati lad for the Applicant. Shri Sean Wassodew for Respondent.

¶15

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ DATED : 18TH DECEMBER 2014

¶16

P.C.

¶17

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant wife and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent husband.

¶18

The Applicant wife is the Appellant. The operative part of

¶19

the impugned judgment and decree dated 28^th November 2012 reads thus:-

¶20

“1. The claims of the respondent and their two sons for maintenance and rent in petition No.A-391/2002 are allowed.

ash

cam-154.14

The petitioner do pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month each to the respondent and their two sons Om and Shiv as maintenance from the date of this order.

¶25

Sons of the parties namely Om and Shiv are entitled to get maintenance till they attain the age of majority.

¶26

The petitioner do pay an amount of Rs.17,000/- per month with escalation of 10% every year as rent to the respondent for securing rented premises from the date of this order.

¶27

Petition No.B-23/2009 is dismissed.

¶28

Petition No.E-128/2009 is disposed of accordingly.”

¶29

The first prayer in this Application is for enhancement of

¶30

maintenance. The prayer is being opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent by relying upon the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent. His submission is that the Respondent is no longer carrying on business and his income is confined to the income from the investments. He is relying upon the Income Tax Returns annexed to the additional affidavit.

¶31

As far as Income Tax Returns now relied upon by the Respondent are concerned, it must be borne in mind that the same have been filed during the pendency of the litigation. In the Income Tax Return filed on 29^th March 2013, the income of the Respondent from other sources is shown as Rs.19,43,894/-. However, in the Income Tax

¶32

ash 3 cam-154.14

¶33

Return filed on 10^th December 2014 (during the pendency of this Application), the income of the Respondent from other sources after set off is shown only as Rs.2,24,588/-. In fact, the said latest Income Tax Return has been filed after the reply was filed by the Respondent to the present Civil Application. It is pertinent to note that in the said reply, the specific income of the Respondent during the last two financial years has not been disclosed and only a vague statement is made regarding his income. Therefore, the Respondent cannot derive any benefit from the Income Tax Returns filed during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶34

Now the elder son Shri Om has attained the majority. The contention of the Applicant is that he is pursuing further studies. The contention of the Respondent is that he has joined some correspondence course. Thus, the fact that the elder son Om is studying is not disputed. In terms of the impugned decree, the Respondent is not liable to pay maintenance to the sons from the date on which they respectively attain the age of majority. The Respondent is under an obligation to provide for expenses on the education of his sons. Therefore, he is under an obligation to pay maintenance to them even after they attain majority till they complete their education.

ash

cam-154.14

Therefore, from the date of this order, the Respondent will have to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the elder son Om towards his education expenses. As far as other son is concerned, we make it clear that the Respondent shall continue to pay the amount as directed by the Family Court till he completes his education.

¶39

As far as the prayer clause (c) is concerned, under the impugned decree, the Respondent has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.17,000/- per month with escalation of 10% every year to enable the Applicant to secure rented premises. Therefore, the impugned decree takes care of the escalation in the rent in future. Moreover, there are no specific grounds pleaded as to why the Applicant wants the amount payable towards rent to be fixed at Rs.21,000/- with the escalation of 20% per year.

¶40

As regards the insurance policies taken for the benefit of the sons, they are entitled to the benefit of the policy amounts. Considering the respective ages of the sons, they require large amount for their education. Therefore, the prayer clause (d) deserves to be granted.

ash

cam-154.14

9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶45

ORDER :

¶46

(a) We direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the Applicant towards the expenses on education of the elder son Om with effect from 1^st December 2014. The amount payable for the December 2014 and January 2015 shall be paid by the Respondent on or before the 15^th day of January 2015. Thereafter, he shall continue to pay the amount regularly and punctually;

¶47

(b) We direct that the aforesaid amount shall be payable till the son Om completes his education;

¶48

(c) We direct that notwithstanding the impugned judgment and decree, the Respondent shall continue to pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Applicant towards maintenance and education expenses of the other son till he completes his education;

¶49

(d) Prayer clause (c ) is rejected for the reasons recorded above;

ash

cam-154.14

(e) Prayer clause (d) is allowed;

¶54

(f) As the original policy documents are in the custody of the Respondent, the Respondent shall ensure that the sons get the amount payable under the policies. He shall take all the necessary steps in that behalf;

¶55

(g) The Application is disposed of on above terms.

¶56

(A.S.GADKARI, J)

Mrs. Jharna @ Jagruti Yogesh Mehta v. Mr. Yogesh Anantrai Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Jharna @ Jagruti Yogesh Mehta v. Mr. Yogesh Anantrai Mehta

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

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Dipak Dattatraya Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Namdeo Hambira Babar Annd Ors. Vs Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Ors.

Namdeo Hambira Babar Annd Ors. Vs Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Ors.

Padmini Raje Mohite Vs Smt. Sandhya Ram Jadhav (Sandhya Surdas Gaikwad) and Ors.