SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ghanshyam S/O Yashwant Rangari vs Ku. Apoorva D/O Ghanshyam Rangari … on 20 April, 2018

FCA 23/17 1 Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 23/2017
Ghanshyam s/o Yashwant Rangari,
Aged about 47, Occu: Service,
R/o Nalanda Nagar, Nari ring Road,
Nari, Nagpur. APPELLANT

…..VERSUS…..

Ku. Apoorva D/o Ghanshyam Rangari,
Aged about 12 years (Minor), Occu. Student,
Through her mother Smt.Priya w/o Ghanshyam
Rangari, aged about 42, Occupation : Service,
R/o 102, Sai-Shradhha Apartment, Somalwada
Railway Crossing, Wardha Road, Nagpur. RESPONDENT

Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.R. Kotangale, Advocate h/f Shri P.S. Wathore, counsel for the respondent.

CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 20 TH APRIL, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

The family court appeal is ADMITTED and heard finally with

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this family court appeal, the appellant-husband challenges

the judgment of Family Court, Nagpur, dated 17.08.2016 in a petition

filed by the respondent-minor daughter, through her guardian mother

under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act directing

the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent

towards maintenance.

::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2018 25/04/2018 01:28:31 :::

FCA 23/17 2 Judgment

3. Few facts giving rise to the family court appeal are stated
thus:-

The appellant is the father of the respondent and he was

married to the mother of the respondent on 11.11.2002 at Nagpur. The

respondent was born from the wedlock on 22.11.2003. An application

was filed by the respondent through her guardian mother under Section

20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act seeking monthly

maintenance to the extent of Rs.25,000/-. It was the case of the

respondent that the appellant is an engineer and was serving in a reputed

company and earning Rs.70,000/- per month towards salary. It was

pleaded that the mother of the respondent is also an engineer and was

serving as a Deputy Executive Engineer and she was also earning

handsome salary. The appellant and the mother of the respondent had

separated and the respondent was residing with her mother. According

to the respondent, she requires at least a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month

towards maintenance as she was five years old at the relevant time and

was taking education in Upper KG at Montford Senior School (CBSC

Pattern). According to the respondent, considering her basic needs and

the educational requirements, it was necessary to direct the appellant to

pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent.

4. The appellant filed the written statement and denied the

claim of the respondent. He however admitted that he is an engineer and

::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2018 25/04/2018 01:28:31 :::
FCA 23/17 3 Judgment

was serving in a reputed company. It was pleaded by the appellant that

the respondent’s mother was also working in a reputed company as an

engineer and she had sufficient income for maintaining herself and the

respondent. The appellant denied the claim of the respondent that she

requires a sum of Rs.1,200/- per month towards transportation charges

for attending the school.

5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court

framed the issues and on an appreciation of the evidence, recorded a

finding that the appellant was neglecting the respondent and he was

liable to pay maintainance to her under Section 20 of the Hindu

Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The Family Court held that the monthly

expenditure of respondent-Apoorva would be Rs.12,000/- per month and

considering the fact that the appellant and the respondent are both

earning, it would be necessary for the appellant to shell out a sum of

Rs.8,000/- for the maintenance of the respondent. The appellant has

challenged the judgment of the Family Court in this appeal.

6. Shri Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the appellant,

submitted that without any basis, the Family Court has recorded a finding

that the monthly needs of the respondent would be Rs.12,000/-. It is

stated that even assuming that the respondent requires a sum of

::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2018 25/04/2018 01:28:31 :::
FCA 23/17 4 Judgment

Rs.12,000/- per month for her maintenance, there is no propriety in the

issuance of the direction by the Family Court to the appellant to pay a

sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance,

when both the appellant and the respondent’s mother are engineers and

are drawing handsome salaries. It is stated that the responsibility of the

mother and father of the respondent would be equal, more so when their

earnings are almost similar.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

has supported the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that

it would be the primary responsibility of the father to pay

maintenance to the daughter. It is however not disputed that the

respondent’s mother is also an engineer and earns a considerable

amount towards salary.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that

the following points arise for determination in this family court appeal:-

I) Whether the Family Court was justified in directing the

appellant to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the

respondent towards his share of maintenance?

II) What order?

::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2018 25/04/2018 01:28:31 :::
FCA 23/17 5 Judgment

9. Since the appellant has not very seriously disputed that the

respondent would require a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month for education

and other expenses, it would be necessary to consider whether the Family

Court was justified in directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/-

towards the maintenance for the respondent. Though we find that the

Family Court has not recorded any cogent reasons for holding that the

monthly monetary requirement of the respondent would be Rs.12,000/-,

since the appellant has not agitated that issue very seriously, we consider

that the monthly requirement of Apoorva in monetary terms would be

Rs.12,000/-. The Family Court has not recorded a single reason as to

why the appellant is required to bear the financial burden to a higher

extent than the mother of the respondent. It is not in dispute that the

appellant and the respondent’s mother are both engineers and are both

holding responsible posts and are earning handsome salaries. If that be

so, it would be the responsibility of both, the father and the mother of

Apoorva, to bring up Apoorva. If Apoorva requires a sum of Rs.12,000/-

per month towards her needs, it would be necessary for the mother of

Apoorva to equally bear the said expenses and the liability of each of

them will be to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. In the circumstances

of the case, the Family Court has committed an error in directing the

appellant to shell out more amount than what is payable by the mother of

the respondent without recording any reason for holding so.

::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2018 25/04/2018 01:28:31 :::

FCA 23/17 6 Judgment

10. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the family court appeal is

partly allowed. The judgment of the Family Court is modified. The

appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the

respondent towards maintenance and other expenses from the date of the

judgment of the Family Court, viz. 17.08.2016. We are not inclined to

disturb the part of the order that directs the appellant to pay the litigation

expenses to the respondent. We uphold the part of the order that directs

the appellant to pay the litigation expenses. In the circumstances of the

case, there would be no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

APTE

::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2018 25/04/2018 01:28:31 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation