Allowed

Mrs. Eureka Joy, D/O. Alfred Baptista v. Mr. Joy Anthony Payyapply

Bombay HC23 Sept 2016CAM/336/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in Civil Application No. 336 of 2015, enhanced the interim maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court. The wife's maintenance was increased to Rs. 15,000 p.m., and the daughter's was increased to Rs. 10,000 p.m. considering the husband's earnings and the child's school expenses.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs. 15,000 p.m. for the wife and Rs. 10,000 p.m. for the daughter, payable from today onwards.

Mrs. Eureka Joy, D/O. Alfred Baptista Vs Mr. Joy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

CAM 336 of 2015

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 336 OF 2015 IN

¶7

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 197 OF 2015

¶8

Mrs. Eureka Joy, d/o. Alfred Baptista ….Applicant/ Appellant

¶9

¶10

Mr.Joy Anthony Payyapply

¶11

….Respondent

¶12

¶13

Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali for Applicant / Appellant None for the Respondent

¶14

¶15

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ

¶16

DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2016

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

Civil application is filed for enhancement of the maintenance

¶19

amount which was granted by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that the Respondent – husband is working in Dubai and is earning 5,396/-

¶20

p.m. Dirham, which is equivalent to Rs.75,000/- p.m as per the Indian Currency in the month of November, 2012.

¶21

Though time was taken by the advocate for the Respondent –

¶22

2/3

¶23

CAM 336 of 2015

¶24

husband in March, 2016 for filing an affidavit in reply, he has not filed any reply till today. It is obvious that the Respondent -Husband is trying to protract the proceedings. Today in the morning as well as in the afternoon session, the advocate for the Respondent -husband did not appear before us. The Trial Court has granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the Appellant-wife and Rs.5,000/- p.m. to their daughter.

¶25

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the prima facie case is made out by the Applicant/Appellant for enhancing the said amount by way of granting ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a) to (c) as prayed in the civil application filed by the Applicant for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

¶26

The maintenance amount, therefore, is enhanced as prayed by the Applicant /Appellant in the Civil Application. Maintenance amount granted by the Family Court for Rs.10,000/- p.m. is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the Applicant/Appellant wife. Maintenance amount granted by the Family Court for Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the daughter is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- p.m. This amount shall be paid from today onwards.

¶27

3/3 CAM 336 of 2015

¶28

Since the daughter is five years' old and she is admitted in the school. Taking into consideration her school requirements and expenses incurred by the Applicant wife, her maintenance is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- pm. to Rs.15,000/- p.m. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c).

¶29

SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶30

Vaishali Tikam

Mrs. Eureka Joy, D/O. Alfred Baptista v. Mr. Joy Anthony Payyapply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Eureka Joy, D/O. Alfred Baptista v. Mr. Joy Anthony Payyapply

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

Surendrakumar K Bajpai S/O.Krishnakumar B Bajpai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mukesh Ramesh Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation Vs the State of Maharashtra Throuth Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Anr.

Mr. Anurag Kulshrestha Vs Mrs. Sapna Kulshrestha @ Sapna Srivastava

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne), through President Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Ashish Ashokrao Dhankikar Vs Mr. Shahed Ali Inayat Ali Ansari