Point of Law: Granting interim maintenance to daughter of appellant-wife and rejection of all other applications – dismissal of husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights whereby wife’s rights do not need readjustment in any manner - Appeal is not maintainable under S.19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. BISHT, J.

1. This Family Court Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Family Court No. 5, Pune on Exh.77 (application for appointment of Commissioner) on 16th December 2014, Exh.285 (application for maintenance and other reliefs under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Hindu Marriage, 1955) on 18th July 2016, Exh.391 (application for amendment) on 8th August 2016 and on Exh.403 (application under Sections 18, 19(8), 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Domestic Violence Act” for the sake of brevity) on 22nd August 2016. By these impugned orders, the learned Judge of the Family Court partly allowed the application at Exh.285 to the extent of granting interim maintenance to daughter of the appellant-wife and rejected all the other applications.

2. Before we summarize the subject matter of all those applications, we deem it appropriate to indicate that those applications were taken out by the appellant - wife herein in Marriage Petition being PA No. 459 of 2010 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) with allied reliefs by the respondent - husband. We also note from the record that said Marriage Petition culminated into dismissal on 16th December 2016. It is only after dismissal of the petition, the appellant-wife by way of present appeal is now assailing the impugned orders although those orders came to be passed on various dates, as noted hereinabove, that is during the pendency of the petition and admittedly exception to those orders were never taken during the pendency or at any earlier point of time before the dismissal of main petition or when the petition was very much on record before the Family Court.

3. The appellant-wife herein moved an application at Exh.77 on 8th February 2012 contending therein that she and her husband had a joint locker bearing No. 569 at Buldhana Urban Co-operative Bank at Prabhat Road Branch, Pune. Her stridhan and ornaments belonging to Miss Sia i.e. daughter are kept in the locker, the keys of which are in possession of the husband. According to her, articles kept in the locker are mentioned in the list annexed therewith and are the exclusive property of her and daughter. Since the husband had refused to part with the keys, she requested to appoint a Court receiver with a direction to open the locker in the presence of both the parties, make an inventory of the articles in the locker and hand over those articles to her. This application was resisted by respondent-husband by filing his say (Exh.121) on 18th March 2014 and out rightly denied that the articles kept in the locker are the exclusive property of his wife and daughter and strongly opposed the appointment of any Court commissioner.

4. The appellant-wife then moved another application at Exh.285 on 19th January 2016 under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Act claiming therein permanent alimony, reimbursement of expenses, enhanced interim maintenance, retention of child custody and provision for accommodation/residence. This application was also resisted by the respondent-husband by filing his say (Exh.313) by contending that the essential precondition which is required for claiming maintenance under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Act is that she should make out a clear cut case in the pleadings bonafidely disclosing all her incomes, investments, assets and all other relevant facts and has to make out a case as to how she is unable to maintain herself or her child out of her own income. Moreover, maintenance of child is not covered under Section 24 of the Act so also permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act as his petition is for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. The appellant-wife further moved an application at Exh.391 on 27th July 2016 seeking amendment of her written statement. By the proposed amendment she wanted to include in her written statement certain suggestions appearing in the cross-examination in criminal proceedings b