JUDGMENT :

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J.

1. The Family Court Appeal is heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Family Court Appeal is filed by the wife and daughter challenging the judgment of the Family Court, Mumbai dated 29.4.2017 passed in CIV. M.A. No. 192 of 2011.

3. This litigation has a long history. Facts in brief may be noted which are as under:-

3.1. Appellant No. 1 - wife and respondent husband had matrimonial disputes due to which, appellant No. 1 along with her daughter i.e. appellant No. 2 started residing separately. In the year 1997, appellant No. 1 filed the maintenance petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. On 5.1.2007, the parties signed the consent terms pursuant to which the husband would pay maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to the daughter. The daughter was admitted in medical course in June 2007. The wife filed application for enhancement of the maintenance sometime in August 2008. The Family Court passed the order dated 13.4.2010 enhancing the maintenance in favour of the wife to Rs. 4000/- and in favour of the daughter to Rs. 5000/-. This order of the Family Court was challenged by the husband before the High Court by filing FCA No. 82 of 2010. He prayed for interim stay. The High Court by speaking order dated 15.11.2010 rejected the application for interim relief. Subsequently, the Family Court Appeal came to be dismissed for default on 22.6.2012. There was no attempt to have the said appeal restored. The husband's challenge to the order of the Family Court enhancing maintenance in favour of the wife and the daughter, thus, stood terminated.

3.2. In the meantime, the husband had filed Civil Misc. Application No. 192 of 2011 on 5.8.2011 in which he had alleged that the wife has regular substantial income which was suppressed by her from the Court. He relied on the bank statements which showed certain movement of amounts in joint bank account of wife and daughter. According to the husband, thus, the wife had withheld the vital information of her source of income at the time when the consent terms were settled as well as at the time when the Family Court passed the order for enhancement of the maintenance. He, therefore, prayed that the order dated 13.4.2010 passed by the Family Court enhancing the maintenance be cancelled.

3.3. The wife had filed written statement to such application in which she denied the allegations of having any source of income. She stated that her father died on 7.9.2009. After his death, certain amount due towards his investments were credited to her account. The account was maintained by her brother. The amount in question is, therefore, not her income.

3.4. Both sides led oral evidence before the Family Court in such proceedings. The husband stated that he was working in bank from where he retired in January, 2016. At the time of retirement, he was drawing salary of Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month. He does not get any pension after the retirement. He had received amount of Rs. 35 Lakhs in lump sum at the time of retirement from the investment of which he receives monthly interest of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 17,000/-.

3.5. The wife in her examination-in-chief had stated that she had studied only upto SSC. She had not taken any job. She did not have income and therefore, had not filed income tax returns.

3.6. The daughter who had by that time became major was also examined. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she started getting stipend in the year 2014 which initially was Rs. 5000/- per month. She was in the year 2017 receiving stipend of Rs. 42,000/- to Rs. 43,000/- per month.

3.7. On the basis of such pleadings, the Family Court passed the impugned order. Learned Judge was principally influenced by the fact that the daughter was receiving sizable stipend. He also noticed that the wife was maintaining a bank account in which there was some movement of money other than the maintenance