* 1 * W.P.5286.2010 28.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5286 OF 2010 Mrs. Manisha Madhukar Satam ..... Petitioner. V/S. Shri. Madhukar Akaram Satam .........Respondent * * * * * * Mrs. Manisha Satam, petitioner in person. Mr. Ganesh Sovani, Advocate for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 28 October, 2010. P.C. : 1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-wife is to challenge three orders passed by the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane on the applications at Exhibit-150, 162 and 176 in Special Civil Suit No. 526 of 2006. The petition is opposed by * 2 * W.P.5286.2010 28.10.2010 the respondent-husband. 2. The application at Exhibit-150 was filed by the petitioner- wife for custody of the children of the parties and for having access to them. It is admitted fact that both the children are major. Both were major even at the time of filing of the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent, states that both the children are Computer Engineers. They are employed and are maintaining themselves out of their own earnings. The impugned order rejects the application at Exhibit-150 on the ground that there is no question of granting custody of the two children as they are major. Similarly, there was no question of granting any access by the Court to the children. Having attained their majority long back, it is for the two children to decide whether they desire to meet the petitioner or not. In these facts, no fault can be found with this order. 3. The application at Exhibit-162 was filed by Manish and Megha, the children of the parties under Order 32 Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code for abandoning their claim for maintenance * 3 * W.P.5286.2010 28.10.2010 against the respondent. The petitioner had opposed the application alleging that the same had been filed under the pressure of the respondent. At the time of filing of the application in the year 2008, Manish was 27 years old and Megha 24 years old. Both the children had produced their birth certificates alongwith their application. In view of their age, as also their desire not to seek any maintenance from the respondent, the Court allowed their application. Mr. Sovani, the learned counsel for the respondent, states that the trial court had in order to have complete satisfaction of its conscience interviewed both the children before passing the order. In these circumstances, there can be no infirmity in the order passed below Exhibit-162. 4. As regards the third application at Exhibit-176, it was filed by the petitioner for enhancement of maintenance. She claimed a share to the extent of 75% in the earnings of the respondent. The application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that earlier similar applications filed by the * 4 * W.P.5286.2010 28.10.2010 petitioner below Exhibit-110 had been dismissed by the court on 02.03.2006. Besides, the application did not set out any change in the circumstance necessitating enhancement of the maintenance. In that application, the petitioner also sought maintenance for both the children. The trial court rejected the application by handwritten order on the application itself. It noted rejection of the applications made by the petitioner at Exhibit-157 and 162 and also rejection of earlier applications for enhancement. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with this order either. The petition is therefore dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]