Partly allowed

Mrs. Vaishali Dinesh Chaudhari v. Mr. Dinesh Tukaram Chaudhari

Bombay HC6 May 2014CAM/96/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the wife's application to enhance her own maintenance as she is gainfully employed. The court accepted the respondent's offer to pay maintenance for the minor son, directing an additional Rs.1000 per month.

What did the court decide?

Application for increasing the applicant's own maintenance rejected; Rs.1000 per month directed for the minor son's maintenance.

Mrs. Vaishali Dinesh Chaudhari Vs Mr. Dinesh Tukaram… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2014)

cam96

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2014 IN
 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.70 OF 2007

¶5

Vaishali Dinesh Chaudhari ...Applicant
vs.
Dinesh Tukaram Chaudhari ...Respondent

¶6

Mr.Sai Chougule i/b Mr.Shrishailya S. Deshmukh for
the applicant

¶7

Mr.Sandesh D. Patil for the respondent

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 M.S.SONAK, JJ.
DATE : MAY 6, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1Heard the learned counsel for the applicant-
wife and the learned counsel for the respondent.
This is the application made by the applicant-wife
in Family Court Appeal preferred by the respondent-
husband. The petition filed by the respondent-
husband for divorce has been dismissed by the Family
Court.

¶11

2The appeal was admitted on 30th July 2007. While
admitting the appeal, a statement of the learned
counsel for the respondent was recorded that he will
continue to pay maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month
to the applicant-wife.

¶12

3The present application is filed by the
applicant-wifeseekingenhancementofthe
maintenance from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- per month.

¶13

2 cam96

¶14

In paragraph 5 of the application, the applicant-
wife has stated that she being the housewife, she
has no source of earnings and she is living a very
frugal life. A reply has been filed by the
respondent to which a salary slip of the applicant-
wife for the month of March 2014 has been annexed
which shows that the applicant-wife is gainfully
employed with M/s.Uttara Foods which is stated to
be the sister concern of Venkateshara Hatcheries.
Her monthly emolument as disclosed from the salary
slip is Rs.10,230/-. The learned counsel for the
applicant-wife on instructions accepts the fact that
the applicant-wife is in the employment from 1st
August 2010 as disclosed by the salary slip. Thus,
a false statement has been made in the application
by the applicant-wife and, therefore, the prayer
made by the applicant-wife cannot be considered on
merits.

¶15

4However, the minor son who is 12 years old is
in the custody of the applicant-wife and, therefore,
prayer for grant of maintenance at the enhanced rate
to the minor will have to be considered.

¶16

5The learned counsel for the respondent-husband
on instructions of the respondent states that the
respondent will pay total monthly maintenance at the
rate of Rs.1500/- to the minor son. We accept the
said statement. Considering the fact that the
applicant-wife is employed, for the time being, we
are of the view that the maintenance amount offered
at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month is reasonable.

¶17

¶18

cam96

¶19

6 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶20

(I) Application is rejected;

¶21

(II) We accept the statement made by the respondent-husband that he will pay total monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the minor son. It is stated that out of maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month already fixed by this Court, the component of Rs.500/- is payable to the son. Therefore, in view of the said statement, from May 2014 onwards, in addition to amount of Rs.2000/- fixed under the order dated 30^th July 2007, the respondenthusband shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the applicant-wife as the enhanced maintenance to the son along with amount of maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month. The enhanced amount shall be regularly deposited in the bank account of the applicant-wife;

¶22

(III)In view of the statement made by the
respondent-husband and acceptance thereof by
this Court, we are not passing any separate
order for grant of maintenance to the minor
son.

Mrs. Vaishali Dinesh Chaudhari v. Mr. Dinesh Tukaram Chaudhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Vaishali Dinesh Chaudhari v. Mr. Dinesh Tukaram Chaudhari

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

Madhukar Ramkrushna Patil Vs District Magistrate and Ors.

Dharmesh Topranni and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Pratibha Mahila Pratisthan through Director Sau. Jaishree Vijay Jagtap Vs Smt. Jaishree S. Dange and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Banarsidas Gupta (Since Decd) through Lrs Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Pcs Technology Ltd. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

R. J. Kochar Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Anr.