1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1287/2009 (Suryakant s/o Veershetty Biradar Vs. Sow. Sudha w/o Suryakant Biradar and Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RB Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant; ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 25th January, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The wife/respondent, in spite of service, absent. 3) The original defendant/husband Suryakant feels aggrieved by the order of grant of maintenance by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga dated 16.2.2009, awarding Rs.9,000/- to the wife - Sudha and Rs. 6,000/- to the son - Sharan. 4) The Counsel submits, the grant of maintenance is exorbitant, it is not rational to the income derived by the husband. The daily deposition of Rs. 5,000/- in the bank account has been misconstrued by the learned Judge and consequently, such order of grant of maintenance needs interference. 2 5) Before the learned Judge there was revenue record, showing the yield from agricultural property, which is 8 acres and 9 gunthas in the name of husband/applicant herein. The salary slip was produced showing the gross income of the husband at the material time to be Rs.28,842/-. The Counsel submits that deposition of Rs.5,000/- is misconstrued. However, there was record produced before the learned Judge having made such deposits in the bank. The wife canvased, two vehicles are owned by the husband from which also he is getting regular income and he is also dealing as a financer. This has been denied by the applicant husband, contending that the vehicles are owned by his brother and it has nothing to do with the income derived therefrom. 6) The fact remains, even otherwise, from the total sum derived from agricultural property and added to it is the gross salary then prevalent, Rs.28,842/-, the learned Judge was justified in awarding the maintenance, it was to ensure that the wife resides and enjoys the life akin to the income and standard of her husband applicant herein. The wife, in the factual details of the matter, having suffered heart surgery, need not be expected to face starvation to 3 maintain herself and the child born in 1993. The contention that there is a separate income to the wife derived from a residential premise is not at all established from any evidence, nor there is any issue to this effect, being no pleading. 7) The overall observation of the learned Judge about the deposit in the bank even if it is ignored, the factual details indicate, the award of maintenance or the medical expenses is not on a higher pedestal to make it virtually difficult for the husband to remit and comply. 8) No interference. First Appeal lacks merit, it is dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa1287.09