SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.
Kalpana - Appellant
Versus
Prakash - Respondent
Civil Application (O) No. 1508 of 2019 and Family Court Appeal No. 88 of 2014
Decided On : 01-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Shri S.P. Hedaoo, Advocate, for the Appellant / Shri Yuvraj Khobragade, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Subsequent developments and maintenance awarded in previously instituted proceedings should be considered in determining the maintenance payable to the claimant.

Headnote:

Modification - Family Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9, Section 13(1-A)(ii), Section 25; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 21 Rule 33 - The court discussed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, including Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights, Section 13(1-A)(ii) for divorce, and Section 25 for alimony. The court also referred to Order 21 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for periodical payment. The court highlighted the legal principle that subsequent developments and maintenance awarded in previously instituted proceedings should be considered in determining the maintenance payable to the claimant.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant/wife sought modification of the order for maintenance based on changed circumstances, including the respondent/husband's enhanced salary. The court analyzed the previous orders for maintenance and the subsequent developments in the case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant/wife was already receiving an enhanced amount of maintenance, taking into account the maintenance awarded in previously instituted proceedings. The court also considered the age of the son and his entitlement to maintenance.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant/wife was entitled to modification of the maintenance order based on changed circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due to subsequent developments and the maintenance awarded in previously instituted proceedings, the appellant/wife was already receiving an enhanced amount of maintenance, and there was no rational ground to modify the order.

Final Decision: The Civil Application for modification of the maintenance order was dismissed as devoid of merits.

ORDER

Pushpav. Ganediwala, J. - This is an application by the appellant/wife seeking modification of the order dated 07/07/2015 passed in Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014.Before adverting to decide this application, the brief facts with regard to various orders for maintenance in various proceedings passed by the Courts need to be noted.

2. The marriage of the appellant/wife with the respondent/husband was solemnized on 17/05/1997, and out of the said wedlock, they have a son, viz., Kartik, born on 11/07/1999. Since November - 1998, the couple is residing separately. The custody of the child (now major) is with the appellant/wife.

3. At the time of marriage, the respondent/husband was serving as a Research Assistant in Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies, Parel, Mumbai. Feeling aggrieved with the act of desertion by the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife filed a petition bearing No. A-69/2003 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter "Act of 1955", for short) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, and the same was decided in favour of the appellant/wife vide judgment dated 29/04/2008 directing the respondent/husband to resume cohabitation and to pay her the permanent alimony of Rs.3,500/- (rupees three thousand five hundred) per month and Rs.1,500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred) to the child, total Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) per month from the date of judgment and decree.

4. Instead of complying with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent/husband, he filed a petition bearing No. A-487/2009 for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Act of 1955, which came to be dismissed on merits. During the pendency of this petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 filed by the appellant/wife came to be rejected on the ground that she is already getting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) per month for herself and her minor son Kartik in Petition No. A-69/2003. In the said order, the Family Court directed that the payment of permanent alimony in Petition No. A-69/2003 shall be deemed to have been the payment made pursuant to the interim maintenance as well.

5. Thereafter, on 18/10/2013, the appellant/wife filed an application below Exh. 62 in divorce Petition No. A-487/2009 for enhancement of interim maintenance. This application came to be rejected by the Family Court, Nagpur vide order dated 26/05/2014. In Writ Petition No. 5895/2014 against the order below Exh. 62, this Court vide order dated 10/08/2015 remanded the matter for afresh consideration directing the Family Court to decide Exh. 62 in the light of the documents filed by the appellant/wife and also the order dated 07/07/2015 passed by this Court in the Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014. It was also observed by this Court that the claim of the appellant/wife for the period till 30/06/2015 is required to be considered.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/wife challenged the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and permanent alimony before this Court to the extent of grant of permanent alimony in Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014 (Old First Appeal No. 708/2008). In this appeal, the parties entered into the terms of settlement and requested the Court to pass the decree in terms of settlement. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 07/07/2015 disposed of Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014 in terms of settlement. It was settled between the parties that the respondent/husband will pay Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month towards permanent alimony for both mother and son from 01/07/2015 and also to bear the educational expenses of the child.

7. As per directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5895/2014, the Family Court, Nagpur reconsidered the application below Exh. 62 and rejected the same vide order dated 12/01/2016 specifically observing that as the parties have settled the terms for grant of permanent alimony @ Rs. 10,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top