1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 332 OF 2008 Smt. Triveni Navnitlal Manseta and ors. ..Appellants Vs. Shri Navnitlal Chatrabhuj Manseta ..Respondent Mr. J.D. Daiya with Mr. G.H. Keluskar for appellants. Mr. M.D. Pokale for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. July 02, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.H. Marlapalle, J.): 1. This appeal impugns a common judgment and order dated 21/8/2007 rendered by the Family Court at Mumbai so far it relates to the amount of maintenance granted in Petition No. C-26 of 1995 filed by the appellant. The Family Court directed to pay maintenance at Rs.4000/- per month for the appellant – wfie and Rs.2000/- per month towards the maintenance to appellant no.4 – Neha from the date of the order i.e. 21/8/2007. In addition, the Family Court also granted maintenance at Rs.1000/- per month to each of the married daughters i.e. appellant nos.2 and 3 and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was directed to be paid towards Stridhan. The appellants pray for enhancement of the maintenance amount. The appellants further claimed that the 2 maintenance ought to have been granted from the date of the application. 2. The Family Court, on the evaluation of the evidence, held that the appellant no.1 was a legally wedded wife of the respondent and from the said marriage they begot three daughters i.e. appellant nos.2, 3 and 4. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were already married and appellant no.4 had completed her graduation. She had stepped in the witness box and stated that she would not have any source of income. On the point of the husband’s income and assets/properties, the appellant no.1 could not support her contentions that he had sufficient movable and immovable properties, including a Bungalow at Baroda which was disposed off in 1997. The appellant had also claimed that she was a partner in Laxmi Trading Company along with the respondent’s brother Himmatlal and one more person. She could not establish that she was the proprietress of Laxmi Trading Company. The respondent claimed that he had no source of income and that has been disbelieved by the Family Court. An Officer from the Deccan Merchant Co-operative Bank was examined by the appellants in support of the Bank Accounts of the respondent. The Family Court considered the document at Exh. 85 and noted that the respondent could not avoid the responsibility of payment of maintenance to his wife and three daughters. The respondent owned Flat No. 9 at Laxmi Narayan Niwas and he sold it for Rs.25 lacs. From the documents submitted by the respondent himself, the Family Court noted that the said flat was sold for Rs.10,50,000/- and the respondent got a share of Rs.4,27,500/-. Interim maintenance at Rs.5000/- was granted to the wife. Keeping all these in mind, the learned Judge of the Family Court fixed the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month for the wife and Rs.2000/- per month for the unmarried daughter. It cannot be said that the said maintenance amount fixed is not 3 adequate having regard to the income/properties of the appellant. 3. On the issue of the date of payment of maintenance, there is some merit in the submissions that the maintenance amount ought to have been given from the date of the filing of the application. However, it appears that interim maintenance was being paid and as has been noted in the connected orders passed by us today that the respondent is seriously sick as of now and, therefore, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere in the same, save and except to clarify that any amount paid by way of interim maintenance shall not be adjusted. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order fixing maintenance does not call for any interference. 4. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The amount deposited by the respondent – husband with the Registry of this court pursuant to the order passed in FCA Nos.118 and 119 of 2008 is allowed to be withdrawn by the present appellant nos.1 and 4. We also clarify that any amount paid by way of interim maintenance shall not be adjusted. 5. Civil Application No. 332 of 2008 does not survive and the same shall stand disposed as such. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)