1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1725 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4407 OF 2009 Shri Ashok B. Adole ...Appellant/deft.. v. 1 Sau. Shantabai A. Adole & Anr. ...Respondents/plffs. Mr.Rameshwar N. Gite, adv. For the Appellant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 20th November , 2009 P.C. For the order which I propose to pass I do not find it necessary to issue notice to the plaintiffs/respondents. 1 The appellant is the original defendant and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. Plaintiff no.1 is the wife and the plaintiff no.2 is the unmarried daughter of the defendant/appellant. They filed Special Civil Suit No.276/07 for grant of maintenance and the marriage expenses of the daughter. According to the defendant, they were already granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.800/- per month respectively as per the orders passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court in the civil suit granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.1800/- per month for the daughter 2 from the date of the order, i.e., 6.7.2009. That order is challenged in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is required to pay maintenance as granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as well as as per the decree in the civil suit and this puts heavy burden on him. He also contends that maintenance granted by the trial Court is heavy taking into consideration his salary. 2 On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that the appellant is under some misunderstanding about the order and, therefore, he is under impression that he has to pay maintenance as per both orders separately. Infact, in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sujit Chaudhari Vs. Radha Chaudhari, AIR 1999 SC 536, has clarified that maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. would be liable to be adjusted against the maintenance granted in the suit. In view of this, it is clear that the appellant is required to pay maintenance to the wife @ Rs.2,000/- per month and to the daughter @ Rs.1,800/- inclusive of the maintenance earlier granted by the JMFC under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and not in addition to that. The impugned judgment reveals that for the month of October, 2008, his 3 salary record was produced. His basic salary was Rs.7,107/- while his gross salary was Rs.13,406/-. After deductions, his take home salary was Rs.8,837/-. Deductions included amount of Rs.3,300/- towards the recovery of loan taken by him, which is a voluntary deduction. Even after considering the deductions, his take home salary is Rs.8,837/- and he is required to pay Rs.3,800/- towards maintenance to the wife and daughter. It was his contention that he is also liable to maintain his mother. The trial Court noted that his mother is independently getting pension of Rs.4,107/- per month and, therefore, she is not depending on the appellant. Taking into consideration, these circumstances, I find no substance in the present appeal. 3 Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed with clarification that the maintenance granted in Special Civil Suit No.276 of 2007 shall be inclusive of the maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 4 As the appeal itself is finally disposed off, Civil Application No.4407/09 for stay does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)