Smt.Rohini Priyadarshan Sharma Vs Shri Priyadarshan Jaichand Sharma

cam100

1

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2013 IN
 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.101 OF 2012

¶5

Rohini Priyadarshan Sharma ...Applicant
vs.
Priyadarshan Jaichand Sharma ...Respondent

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Mr.Y.M.Kanchan for the applicant
Mr.Jeevan Kuril i/b Mr.Pradip D. Gavali for the
respondent

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.
 DATE : AUGUST 3, 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned counsel for the respondent. The
applicant is the wife and the respondent is the
husband. The appeal is preferred by the applicant-
wife. The challenge in the appeal is to the Decree
dated 29th December 2011 passed by the learned Judge
of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai in a petition
filed by her. In the petition, the applicant sought
a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. She
also sought maintenance for herself and for her
minor daughter whose present age is approximately 10
years. The minor daughter is born on 16th May 2006.
By the impugned Decree, the prayer for divorce was
dismissed. The learned Judge directed the
respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
month towards maintenance of minor daughter from 7th

¶11

2 cam100

¶12

June 2010 till she attains majority. The present
application is filed by the applicant-wife seeking
total interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month
for the minor girl.

¶13

2In the application, the applicant has contended
that she is employed and her monthly salary is about
Rs.37,000/-. However, not a single document in
support of the said contention is annexed. The
learned counsel for the applicant today states that
as of today, her salary is Rs.50,000/- per month.
In paragraph 9, it is contended that during the
period of 2005-2009 when the respondent-husband was
employed in U.S.A, he was earning $ 1,00,000/- per
year. The applicant claimed that the annual expenses
incurred on the maintenance of the minor girl are
Rs.3,55,600/-, the estimated annual expenses for the
next year are Rs.3,86,100/-.

¶14

3There is a reply filed by the respondent-
husband. As far as the statement made in the
application regarding his income during the 2005-
2009 is concerned, the same is denied. However, the
respondent has not disclosed as to what was his
correct income. He has stated that as he did not
get a Green Card and his Visa got expired, he was
transferred to Canada. He has stated that as he
could not cope up with loneliness, he returned to
India. In the second last paragraph of the
affidavit, he has stated that at present he has no
source of income. The learned counsel for the
respondent on instructions states that the

¶15

cam100

¶16

3

¶17

respondent is unemployed but he is at present
staying in Canada.

¶18

4We have perused the averments made in paragraph
10 of the application. The amount claimed by the
applicant in this application appears to be
exorbitant. When the application was filed on 20th
March 2013, the age of the daughter was
approximately 7 years. It is not possible to believe
that 7 years old daughter was attending a dance
class, a drawing class, a drama class, a class for
singing and craft activities, Art of Living classes
etc. A sum of Rs.8,000/- is claimed on the count of
visits to museum. A sum of Rs.6000/- is claimed on
account of phone calls. Suffice it to say that the
amounts set out in paragraph 10 of the application
do not appear to be realistic.

¶19

5As far as the respondent is concerned, it is
impossible to believe that he has no source of
income but still he continues to reside in Canada.
He has not disputed that till November 2012, he was
employed. However, he has avoided to disclose his
correct income. He has not denied that he was
working in USA from 2005 till 2009. He has stated
that as he could not secure a Green Card, he was
transferred by his employer to Canada. Therefore,
the contention raised by the respondent in his reply
that he is unemployed cannot be accepted for its
face value especially when the learned counsel for
the respondent states that though he is unemployed,
he continues to reside in Canada.

¶20

cam100

¶21

4

¶22

6Nevertheless, considering the standard of
living of both the parties and considering the
atmosphere in which the child has grown up, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month granted by the Family Court in
the year 2011 is certainly insufficient for her
maintenance. The applicant-wife is also employed.
She may not be getting the income on par with the
income of the respondent who is abroad. But still
the applicant will have to also contribute to the
maintenance of the child. We, therefore, propose to
fix the maintenance payable by the husband at the
rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from 1st August 2016
onwards till the disposal of the appeal. From the
date of filing of the application till 31st July
2016, we propose to fix the maintenance at the rate
of Rs.20,000/- per month. The aforesaid amounts
will be inclusive of amount of Rs.10,000/- per month
payable as per the Decree of the Family Court.

¶23

7Accordingly, we dispose of this application by
passing the following order:

¶24

(I)We direct the respondent to pay maintenance
at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for the
maintenance of his minor daughter from 20th
March 2013 till 31st July 2016. From 1st August
2016 onwards, he shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-
per month towards maintenance of the daughter
till the disposal of the Appeal. The aforesaid
amounts will be inclusive of amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month payable as per the Decree

¶25

cam100

¶26

5

¶27

of the Family Court;

¶28

(II) Arrears payable up to 31st July 2016 shall be paid by the applicant to the respondent on or before 30th November 2016. The respondent shall keep on paying monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- from 1st August 2016 on or before 15th of every calendar month;

¶29

(III) As per the present arrangement, the aforesaid amounts shall be directly transferred online to the account of the applicant-wife;

¶30

(IV) Civil application is disposed of on above terms.

Smt.Rohini Priyadarshan Sharma v. Shri Priyadarshan Jaichand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Rohini Priyadarshan Sharma v. Shri Priyadarshan Jaichand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Art Advertising and Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Manasi Shyamsunder Kelkar Vs Prashant Gopal Gokhale

Help Association(Ngo) and Anr. Vs Government of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Alguram Ramdhani Vishwakarma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt.Rohini Priyadarshan Sharma Vs Shri Priyadarshan Jaichand Sharma

Mrs. Kalpana Suresh More Vs Mr. Suresh Ramdas More