1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2008 KIRAN HIRALAL POPAT .. APPLICANT Vs. SMT. SUHASNI @ SWATI KIRAN POPAT. RESPONDENT Mr. S. C. Thatte for applicant Respondent-in-person. CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,JJ. DATE:19/6/2008 P.C. . The petitioner husband has challenged in this appeal judgment and order dated 26/3/08 passed by the 5th Family Court, Mumbai, whereby his petition for divorce was dismissed. 2. Today, we have admitted the appeal. Civil Application No. 125 of 2008 is taken out by the 2 husband praying that the respondent and/or her agents, servants, assigns, relatives or any other person claiming through her may be restrained from entering his house. Civil Application No. 124 of 2008 is also taken out by the husband for stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 26/3/08. By the impugned order while dismissing the petition for divorce, the Family Court has directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance of minor daughter Hemisha till the date of her marriage and Rs.5,000/- to minor son Bhavik till he attains majority. Thus the petitioner has to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of his children. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant at some length. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has got re-married. He has to maintain the daughter of his second wife from her first marriage. He submitted that the applicant is dealing in clothes of infants. He is not doing well. He only earns commission. He submitted that the applicant is willing to pay maintenance @ Rs.7000/- per month which was the interim maintenance granted and, therefore, the 3 order of maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month be stayed. 4. The wife is appearing in person. She has filed her affidavit. We have perused the affidavit. Wife has informed the court that the husband owns two more residential premises and two business premises. She submitted that he is doing very well in his business and, therefore, he may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/-per month. 5. Admittedly the husband has got re-married. His second wife has a daughter from her first marriage. Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions from the applicant, who is present in the court, has stated that the said daughter has got Rs.4 lakhs as compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because her father died in motor accident. Sum of Rs.4 lakhs has been invested in her name in the fixed deposit. It is therefore, clear that so far as this daughter is concerned, since Rs.4 lakhs are invested in her name, the entire responsibility of her maintenance does not lie on the husband. 6. The fact that the husband owns a flat where he 4 is now staying with his second wife is not denied. Two daughters from the first wife are taking education, one is in college in Mumbai and the other is schooling in Panchagani. In our opinion, in the circumstances an amount of Rs.7,000/- will not be sufficient to take care of their education and other expenses. It is not possible for us to hold that the husband does not have sufficient means to pay money to his daughters. Hence we pass the following order: . The husband shall go on paying in all Rs.10,000/- to the wife per month as maintenance towards his daughters. We are informed that so far he has paid @ Rs.7,000/- per month upto 26/3/08. Arrears, if any be cleared within a period of two weeks from today. . Needless to say that the husband will have also to pay costs as directed by the Family Court. The impugned order shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal subject of course to the appellant regularly paying maintenance amount to the daughters. . During pendency of the appeal there will be 5 interim order in terms of prayer clause (a) & (b) of Civil Application No. 125 of 2008. . Both the civil applications are disposed of in the aforestated terms. JUDGE JUDGE