JUDGMENT

Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - This appeal is filed under section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 impugning a part of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.292/12 on the file of the Family Court at Bengaluru. In terms of the impugned order, the family court has granted permanent alimony of Rs.7,500/- per month to the wife from the date of judgment. The wife is in appeal challenging a portion of the judgment and decree to the extent of declining maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month and also to the extent of declining maintenance from the date of suit.

2. The parties to the proceedings are referred to as the 'husband' and 'wife'.

3. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case can be summarized as under:

4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.06.1995. The admitted position is that there are no issues from the marriage and earlier to the filing of the aforesaid petition, a petition was filed by the wife in O.S.No.31/05. In the aforementioned proceedings, the court granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the wife and against the husband.

5. Thereafter, the present petition is filed under sections 18 and 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 wherein the wife claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- on the premise that the husband is not providing maintenance.

6. This petition is opposed by the husband on the premise that he has to take care of his aged mother and his sisters.

7. In support of their respective contentions, the parties have led evidence before the family court. The wife is examined as PW1 and she has produced 25 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. The husband is examined as DW1 and 9 documents are marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.

8. The family court after hearing the parties has concluded that the husband is having an income of Rs.30,000/- per month. It is also the finding of the family court that the wife requires at least Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. Having recorded the aforesaid finding, the family court has passed an order enhancing the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- granted earlier to Rs.7,500/- per month and directed that the enhanced maintenance must be paid from the date of judgment and decree.

9. Learned counsel for the wife assailing disallowed claim would contend that the family court itself has recorded a finding that Rs.10,000/- per month is required for the wife to maintain herself and after recording a finding that the husband is having an income of Rs.30,000/- per month erred in not granting Rs.10,000/- per month claimed by the wife. It is the further contention that Rs.10,000/- is a just and reasonable sum of maintenance considering the income of the husband and no reasons have been assigned by the family court as to why the enhanced amount is not ordered from the date of the petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel would also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha And Another' , AIR 2021 SC 569 and submits that the order of maintenance has to be paid from the date of the petition and not from the date of judgment. Accordingly, he would submit to allow the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the husband has to look after his sisters and aged mother and the family court has rightly taken into consideration this aspect and has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month from the date of judgment and no infirmity can be found in the judgment passed by the Family court. It is further submitted that the husband has retired in the year 2021 and is not getting a monthly pension, as such, any enhancement would cause serious prejudice to the husband who has to t