1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.83 OF 2008 Nimraj Pandharinath Vispute ..Applicant. Versus Hemlata Nimraj Vispute ..Respondent., Applicant in person. Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. :- 1. We have heard the Applicant, party in person and he prays for vacating the order passed by us on 6.8.2008 and 18.9.2008 in Civil Application No.187 of 2008 and Civil Application No.226 of 2008. 2. In Civil Application No.226 of 2008, we passed an order on 6.8.2008 and granted Rule, returnable after six weeks. In the meanwhile, the husband was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the registry of this Court. However, the said order was not obeyed within the stipulated time and on 24.3.2009 an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been deposited with the registry of this Court. 2 3. On 18.9.2008, we passed two separate orders in Civil Application No.187 of 2008 and Civil Application No.226 of 2008. Civil Application No.187 of 2008 was allowed in terms of prayers (A) & (B) therein, which read as under :- “A] That pending the final hearing of this Family Court Appeal this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant an interim injunction against the respondent from entering the residential flat no.9, situated at Runawal Regency, Near Maruti mandir, Survey No.16/9, 12, 13 Kothrud, Pune 411 038. B] That pending hearing and final disposal of this Family Court Appeal this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an injunction against the Respondent from alienating, transferring or creating third party interest in the matrimonial home at flat number 9, Runwal Regency and also in flat number 12, Preetam Apartment, Kothrud, Pune.” 4. Whereas, in Civil Application No.226 of 2008 we granted ad- interim relief on 18.9.2008 allowing the applicant wife to let out Flat No.12, Preetam Apartment, Kothrud, Pune, on leave and licence basis, initially for a period of 11 months and utilise the consideration by way of interim maintenance. 5. Before we proceed further to deal with this prayer made by the Applicant, we record that the orders dated 6.8.2008 and 18.9.2008 which are sought to be vacated, were passed after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and no order was passed ex-parte. 6. Family Court Appeal No.83 of 2008 has been filed by the wife as the petition for divorce, registered as Petition No. A 698 of 3 2004, came to be dismissed by the Family Court on 19.4.2008. The couple has three children - two daughters and one son. Dhanashree, who is about 30 years of age, is already married and is presently in Australia with her husband. Chetashree, the second daughter is 26 years of age and though she has completed her Engineering, as at present, she is the student of management and she is not financially independent as has been stated by Mr.Kshirsagar. Son Saurabha is 22 years of age and is presently studying for B.Com. Second Year. 7. The relationship between the present Applicant and the Respondent has not been dissolved as yet. However, they have been staying separately for quite some time. The Applicant husband stays in Flat No.15B Swami Samartha Co-operative Housing Society, Pashan- Sus Road, Pune-21 whereas the Respondent wife alongwith two unmarried children is occupying Flat No.9 in Runwal Regency, Kothrud, Pune-8. 8. Admittedly, the Applicant is having one more flat in Swami Samartha Co-operative Housing Society, which he has rented out on a monthly consideration of Rs.12,000/-. The Applicant was holding the post of Deputy Registrar in the Department of Co-operatives, Government of Maharashtra and he is presently under suspension. He is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is in receipt of Subsistence Allowance at Rs.12,000/- per month and 4 stays alone. He has no other liability or any other family member to take care of. 9. As per the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by us, allowing the wife to lease out Flat No.12 in Preetam Apartment, Kothrud, Pune, she has leased out the said flat for a consideration of Rs.4000/- per month. There is no dispute that beyond this amount of Rs.4000/- per month, she is not getting any financial assistance from her husband for the maintenance of herself and the two unmarried children. Though the son-Saurabha is a major now, there is nothing before us to show that Chetashree is employed as of now and is earning any salary. The Applicant is required to pay maintenance atleast for his wife and the unmarried daughter. As per Mr.Kshirsagar, the arrears amount of maintenance comes to Rs.91,000/- and this has been disputed by the Applicant. 10. Even regards to the monthly income of the Applicant by way of subsistence allowance and the rental charges of Rs.12,000/- per month that he receives, we do not think that his liability to pay maintenance to his wife and his daughter would be less than Rs.4000/- per month and, therefore, we are not satisfied with the orders passed by us on 6.8.2008 in the applications filed by the wife are required to be vacated. 5 11. Hence, this Application fails and the same is hereby rejected. (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)