1 27010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 270 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2009 Sujata Jayant Kolhatkar ...Applicant V/s. Jayant Bhalchandra Kolhatkar ...Respondent with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2009 Jayant Bhalchandra Kolhatkar ...Applicant V/s. Sujata Jayant Kolhatkar ...Respondent Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the Applicant in C.A. No. 270 of 2010 and the Respondent in C.A. No. 282 of 2010 Mr. Kedar Dighe and Mr. Vishal Khanavkar for the Applicant in C.A. No. 282 of 2010 and the Respondent in C.A. No. 270 of 2010 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 18TH APRIL, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2 27010 2. The first civil application is filed by the wife, praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to pay the arrears of Rs.1,54,000/- towards the rent and (b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to continue to pay the rent of Rs.7,000/- per month for residential accommodation till Respondent purchases flat of 1 BHK on ownership basis in Applicant’s name and possession is handed over. (c) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- per month towards the monthly expenses incurred by Applicant and Chanda. (d) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to pay Applicant the litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- in this Hon’ble Court. (e) Any other orders this Hon’ble High Court may pass as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The second application is filed by the husband, praying for the following reliefs:- “a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to deposit the disclosed sale consideration amount of Rs.50,13,000 and undisclosed cash consideration of Rs.50,00,000 in this Hon’ble Court forthwith. b. Any other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may please be granted.” 4. Insofar as prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application filed by the wife, the same can be disposed of together. That claim is based 3 27010 on the decree passed by the Family Court, requiring the husband to secure alternate accommodation of one BHK, on ownership basis, for the wife in or around Kothrud area within a period of two months from the date of the decree, failing which, to enable the wife to secure alternate accommodation, the husband shall pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the wife. Whereas, during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court, by interim order dated 26th October, 2007, the husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for maintenance of the wife and minor daughter and further amount of Rs.7,000/- per month towards the rent for residential accommodation. Essentially, the grievance in the application filed by the wife is about non-payment of the said interim maintenance towards residential accommodation in the sum of Rs.7,000/- per month from 26th November, 2008 till the date of filing of the application. 5. It is not in dispute that both the parties have challenged the decree passed by the Family Court. In that sense, the husband has challenged the decree, requiring him to provide alternate accommodation of one BHK, on ownership basis, to the wife in or around Kothrud area, or in lieu thereof, give a lumpsum amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the wife. 4 27010 The husband, further, was liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month towards the rent for residential accommodation to the wife. 6. The case of the husband is that,admittedly, the wife has sold one of the properties, which was purchased in the name of the wife, situate at Baner, Pune, for sale-consideration of Rs.50,13,000/- by cheque and Rs.50,00,000/- in cash, and which amount has been received by the wife on 1st February, 2008. The wife has not parted with the said amount, and instead, it now transpires that the amount of R.50,13,000/- has been invested by the wife in the F.D. Scheme, whereunder, the wife is enjoying monthly interest amount thereon to the extent of Rs.23,602/-. In that sense, the wife is already enjoying the monthly interest accruing on the said amount, part whereof belongs to the husband, as the Family Court has found that the husband has 75% share in all the properties either purchased in the name of the wife or the respondent or joint names, as the case may be. In that view of the matter, the question of compensating the wife towards maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month with effect from 1st February, 2008, in lieu of residential accommodation, as determined by the trial Court by way of interim arrangement does not arise. However, the manner in which the interest accrued on the Fixed Deposit amount should be finally appropriated 5 27010 between the parties will be decided during the final hearing of the appeal. For the time being, suffice it to observe that the wife is not entitled for the reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) as prayed, for the aforesaid reason. For the same reason, the relief claimed by the husband in Civil Application No. 282 of 2010 will also stand answered on the same basis. Needless to observe that all questions on merits of the rival claim will be answered at the final hearing of the appeals. 7. Insofar as relief claimed by the wife in terms of prayer clause (c) of Civil Application No. 270 of 2010, it is for payment of Rs.25,000/- per month towards monthly expenses incurred by the wife and daughter Chanda. It is not in dispute that the daughter has already attained majority. She is now around 22 years of age. Besides, the wife is able person and highly qualified. In fact, she was associated in the business of the husband, as claimed by her. Nevertheless, as the husband is already paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month on regular basis, the question of enhancing the maintenance amount to a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, as claimed, does not arise. No material has been disclosed in the application to justify enhancement of maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, as claimed in prayer clause (c). Accordingly, prayer clause (c) is rejected, being devoid of merits. 6 27010 8. The counsel for the husband submits that, instead of paying monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- by cheque, the husband is inclined to remit the amount electronically through bank, if the account number of the wife was disclosed. The counsel for the wife submits that that information will be furnished to the husband in due course. 9. Insofar as prayer clause (d) of the application filed by the wife, it is to direct the husband to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- to the wife. In our opinion, in the fact situation of the present case, the wife is not entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- for the present. However, at the final hearing of the appeal, the Court may consider granting appropriate relief to the wife regarding costs of litigation. That question is left open. 10. Accordingly, both the applications are disposed of on the above terms. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.