ppn 1 41.wp-10227.17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.10227 OF 2017

Anuja Lalit Bhowar )
Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, )
Age : 34 years, Occ.: Housewife )
r/at: 1, Meghalay, N.P. Thakkar Road )
Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057. ) .. Petitioner

Versus

Lalit Prakash Bhowar )
Hindu, Indian Inhabitant )
Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, )
r/at : Room No.401, 4th Floor, )
Saraswati Apartment, )
Near Trimurti Chunabhatti, Sion, )
Mumbai – 400 022. ) .. Respondent

—
Mr.R.T.Lalwani with Mrs.Sadhana Jaikar i/by Mr.Prakash L. Mahadik
for the petitioner.
Mr.Prashant G. Sawant for the respondent.
—

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATE : 6th November 2017
Judgment :-

. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for

the respondent waives service. The petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 24th February 2016

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 2 41.wp-10227.17.doc

passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2, Mumbai rejecting

the application filed by the petitioner for seeking interim maintenance for

herself and her daughter who is six years old.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for

maintenance under the provisions of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The same was decided by the

Metropolitan Magistrate, 65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai on 7th October

2013 directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per

month for maintenance from 5th May 2011 till 27th December 2014 and

an amount of Rs.3,600/- per month for minor daughter till she attains

the age of majority and is married or until further orders. Both the parties

had challenged the said order dated 7 th October 2013 passed by the

Metropolitan Magistrate before the Sessions Court.

4. By an order dated 30th January 2014, the learned Judge of

the Sessions Court granted stay to the order dated 7 th October 2013 until

further orders upon depositing 50% of arrears of amount due towards

the petitioner herein from the date of application to till date of the said

order. The respondent was further directed to deposit 75% of arrears of

amount due towards his daughter from the date of her birth i.e. 27 th

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 3 41.wp-10227.17.doc

December 2011 to till date of the said order. The learned Sessions Judge

made it clear that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent

herein to continue to make the payment of maintenance @Rs.6,000/- per

month including the maintenance of daughter until further orders. Those

proceedings were finally decided and the petitioner and her daughter

have been granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent is employed and has been earning at least Rs.55,000/- per

month as an income. He invited my attention to the affidavit dated 5 th

January 2016 filed by the respondent herein in Interim Application

No.98 of 2015 and would submit that the respondent had shown his

readiness and willingness to pay the Education Expenses of the child

from the date of the application. In the said affidavit, the respondent

undertook and was ready to pay the future Educational Expenses of

the minor child from the date of the said application directly to the

school against the receipt or the school diary till the disposal of the

application for maintenance.

6. Learned counsel invited my attention to the reasons recorded

by the Family Court in the impugned order and submits that interim

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 4 41.wp-10227.17.doc

application filed by the petitioner is rejected mainly on the ground that

while disposing of the proceedings bearing Petition No.A-2273 of 2014,

the Sessions Court had already granted an amount of Rs.6,000/- after

application of judicial mind and had decided the quantum of maintenance

and therefore, it would not be proper to again verify the needs of the

respondent and her daughter and income of the petitioner. It is held that

the amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as awarded by the Sessions Court

was having regard to all the facts agitated by the parties before the

family Court and thus no additional amount can be considered.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to

the order passed by the Sessions Court and would submit that while

directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as

and by way of maintenance for the petitioner herself and for her

daughter, no reasons were recorded by the Sessions Court. He submits

that in any event, the applications filed by the petitioner for maintenance

under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

as well as the Domestic Violence Act are independent proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly brought to the

notice of this Court that the petitioner has now obtained a certificate of

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 5 41.wp-10227.17.doc

practice from Bar Council of Maharashtra in the month of March 2017.

Though the respondent had rendered an undertaking in his affidavit dated

5th January 2016 to pay the future educational expenses of the minor

child from the date of application till disposal of the application, the

respondent has not complied with the said undertaking in toto. He

submits that the petitioner has not started any practice though has

obtained a certificate of practice from the Bar Council of Maharashtra.

In these circumstances, the maintenance being paid by the respondent

@Rs.5,000/- per month is totally insufficient considering the rate of

inflation.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other

hand, submits that interim maintenance granted by the learned

Magistrate in the application filed by the petitioner under the provisions

of the Domestic Violence Act was challenged by both the parties. He

submits that the Sessions Court had already fixed an amount of

Rs.6,000/- per month for the maintenance of the petitioner and her

daughter. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner before this

Court and thus the learned Family Court was right in relying upon the

said order while rejecting the application for interim maintenance filed

by the petitioner. He submits that in the proceedings filed by the

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 6 41.wp-10227.17.doc

petitioner, the learned Magistrate has awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/-

per month and thus no interference with the order passed by the learned

Judge of the Family Court No.2, Mumbai is warranted in this petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that his client is

earning a salary of Rs.55,000/- per month.

10. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the

respondent that the Sessions Court has already fixed an amount of

Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the petitioner

and her daughter and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner

is concerned, a perusal of the said order dated 30 th January 2014 passed

by the learned Sessions Judge indicates that the said order was passed

as and by way of interim order during the pendency of the appeal and

was passed without recording any reasons.

11. In my view, the said order passed by the learned Judge of

the Sessions Court was not conclusive for deciding the interim

application for maintenance made by the petitioner for herself and her

daughter who is six years old and is studying in school after number of

years. It is well settled principle of law that the application for

maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 7 41.wp-10227.17.doc

Procedure and the application made under the provisions of the Domestic

Violence Act are independent proceedings and can be considered

simultaneously.

12. A perusal of the order passed by the Family Court No.2,

Mumbai indicates that the learned Judge of the Family Court carried an

impression that the order passed by the Sessions Court as and by way of

interim order during the pendency of the appeal was conclusive and

binding precedent forever on the Family Court as well as on both the

parties.

13. A perusal of the order dated 21 st November 2015 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge also indicates that no reasons were

recorded by the Sessions Judge while confirming the order of interim

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. Be that as it may, the learned

Judge of the Family court was independently bound to consider the

application for maintenance from the date of application on the basis of

the situation prevailing on the date of such application. The situation

prevailing on the date of the application made by the petitioner in the

year 2013 cannot be same what is prevailing in the year 2016.

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::

ppn 8 41.wp-10227.17.doc

14. Learned Family Court has adopted a casual approach in the

order dated 24th February 2016 by rejecting the application filed by the

petitioner for maintenance for herself and her daughter. Considering the

rate of inflation today, the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month would not be

at all sufficient for any person to survive with dignity and more

particularly for two persons including a school going child.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance

on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Jain

Vs.Akanksha Jain, reported in II (2017) DMC 106 (SC) and more

particularly paragraph 15 thereof. Supreme Court has held that it is no

answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could

support herself. The financial position of the wife’s parents is also

immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of the

parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether

the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his

support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation and,

therefore the Court should decide the claim for maintenance based on

various factors brought before the Court. In my view, the principles laid

down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment would squarely

apply to the facts of this case. The learned Judge of the Family Court

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 9 41.wp-10227.17.doc

ought to have considered the factual situation on the date of making of

application filed by the petitioner for maintenance and not the situation

prevailing in the year 2013.

16. Be that as it may, I am inclined to accept the statement made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner though having

obtained certificate from Bar Council of Maharashtra and has not started

practice. There is no other material produced by the respondent to

controvert this statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner had made an application for maintenance of Rs.25,000/-

per month for herself and Rs.15,000/- per month for her daughter who

is six years old and is studying in school.

17. Considering the fact that the respondent is earning at least a

sum of Rs.55,000/- per month and this fact is not disputed by the

respondent, I am inclined to grant further maintenance of Rs.15,000/-

per month i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per

month to her daughter till till she attains the age of majority from the

date of application made by the petitioner before the Family Court. In

addition to this compensation, the respondent shall continue to pay the

educational fees of the daughter directly to the school upon receipt of the

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::
ppn 10 41.wp-10227.17.doc

communication of the amount on or before the last date for payment of

such fees with intimation to the petitioner. The amount of maintenance

to the petitioner and her daughter by this order is in addition to the

amount of maintenance awarded by the Courts earlier.

18. The impugned order dated 24th February 2016 is accordingly

quashed and set aside. The amount shall be paid by the respondent from

the date of application which was made by the petitioner before the

Family Court. Arrears of amount shall be deposited by the respondent

before the Family Court within two weeks from today. Upon deposit of

such arrears, the Family Court shall permit the petitioner to withdraw

the said amount for herself and her daughter unconditionally.

19. In so far as the maintenance awarded by this Court for each

month is concerned, the same shall be paid by the respondent to the

petitioner on or before 15th day of every month without fail. If this order

is not complied with by the respondent, the petitioner would be at liberty

to file appropriate proceedings for taking an appropriate action against

the respondent.

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::

ppn 11 41.wp-10227.17.doc

20. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to

costs.

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

::: Uploaded on – 10/11/2017 11/11/2017 01:31:55 :::