ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
Application for modification of maintenance order rejected; two months granted to clear arrears.
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.
cam125
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2016 IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.219 OF 2008
Sanjay Madhukar Mungekar
vs.
Saili Sanjay Mungekar
...Applicant
Ms Prabha Uday Badadare for the applicant
Ms Anjali Helekar for the respondent
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 15, 2016
P.C.:
1Heard the learned counsel for the applicant-
husband and the learned counsel for the respondent-
wife. The prayer in this application is for
modification of the order dated 20th December 2013
passed by this Court in Civil Application No.83 of
2012 in the present appeal. By the said order, the
applicant-husband who is employed with Cambata
Aviation Private Limited was directed to pay interim
maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month
after finding that in October 2013, the net earnings
of the applicant-husband were Rs.18,084/- per month.
The present application is filed on the ground that
the employer is not paying full salary to the
applicant-husband. It appears that a charge sheet
was served to the applicant-husband. Thereafter, he
was suspended and with effect from 22nd December
2015, the suspension has been revoked while issuing
warning to the applicant-husband. Reliance is
2 cam125
placed on the documents annexed to the additional
affidavit tendered by the applicant-husband to show
that full salary is not being paid by the employer
of the applicant-husband. There is nothing on
record to show that the applicant-husband has filed
any proceedings against the employer making a
grievance about the non payment of full salary to
him. Instead of filing appropriate proceedings, the
applicant has produced a certificate allegedly
issued by his employer requesting all concerned to
bear with him as he is not able to pay alimony to
his wife. Apart from the contention of the
respondent-wife that the family of the applicant-
husband is possessing a large agricultural land,
this Court is concerned with the earning capacity of
the applicant-husband. The contention that the
applicant is not being paid full salary cannot be
accepted for its face value in absence of concrete
material. Hence, there is no reason to modify the
order granting interim maintenance. The civil
application is rejected.
2However, on the prayer made by the learned
counsel for the applicant-husband, we grant time of
two months from today to clear the arrears of
maintenance payable till today.
(A.A.SAYED,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to modify the interim maintenance order due to alleged non-payment of full salary by the employer.
Sanjay Madhukar Mungekar
Saili Sanjay Mungekar
A.S. OKA
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court