The main legal point established in the judgment is the father's liability to provide for the maintenance of the petitioner under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the quantification of the maintenance amount based on the father's monthly salary and the petitioner's needs.

JUDGMENT :

G. A. SANAP, J.

Both these appeals arise out of judgment and decree, dated 9-1-2019, passed in Petition No. C-55 of 2015, under section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur allowed the petition and awarded the maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of the petition i.e. 27-10-2015. The petitioner, who is the son, has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the amount of monthly maintenance is meagre and needs to be enhanced. The respondent-father assailed the judgment and decree on the ground that the amount of maintenance awarded by the impugned judgment and decree is excessive and exorbitant.

2. Both the appeals are being disposed of by the common Judgment. Parties in this judgment would be referred by their nomenclature in the petition filed before the Family Court, Nagpur.

3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows :

The petitioner is the son of the respondent. The parents of the petitioner got married on 25-6-2000. The petitioner was born in 2001. It is stated that after marriage the dispute arose between the parents of petitioner. The respondent used to demand the salary of his mother. The respondent ill-treated and tortured his mother. The relatives tried to settle the dispute however, due to the conduct of the respondent it was not possible. The mother of the petitioner lodged the complaint at Katol Police Station and on the basis of the crime registered, under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was prosecuted. The mother of the petitioner started residing with her parents. When the petitioner was born, his parents were living separately. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner had given notice to the respondent for divorce by mutual consent and filed the petition for divorce. The petition was decreed on 21-7-2009 and by the decree of divorce the marriage between his parents was dissolved.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not bother to maintain him. His mother borne his education as well as day to day expenses. His mother faced great difficulties while maintaining him with her meager salary. The respondent did not bother to inquire about the well-being of the petitioner as well as his mother. The respondent is doing service as ‘Assistant Teacher’ and his monthly salary is around Rs. 45,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for maintenance @ of Rs. 15,000/- per month and the education expenses.

5. The respondent filed the reply/written statement and opposed the petition. The respondent has not denied his liability to maintain the petitioner however, it is his case that the mother of the petitioner did not allow the respondent to meet his son as and when he expressed the desire to see and meet his son/petitioner. The mother has denied the respondent, the pleasure of the company of the petitioner. Similarly, the mother of the petitioner filed false complaint against him. According to the respondent, the mother of the petitioner is doing service as an ‘Assistant Teacher’ and getting monthly salary of Rs. 48,000/-. The respondent has to maintain his divorcee sister and the daughter of his sister. He has also to maintain his old aged mother. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned Judge of the Family Court on the basis of the material placed on record granted the decree and awarded the maintenance @ of Rs. 5000/- per month. Both parties being aggrieved, for the reasons stated aforesaid, by filing separate appeals have come before this Court. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent. We have gone through the record and proceedings.

7. Ms Amruta Gupta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the meritorious student. The learned Advocate pointed out that in 10th standard he secured 93% mark. The learned Advocate further pointed out that he cle