1 279.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.279 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.89 OF 2009 Mrs.Sampada Ajay Chavan ...Applicant Versus Mr.Ajay Ramrao Chavan ...Respondent ...... Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Applicant. Ms.Seema Sarnaik for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 7, 2010. P.C. 1. This Application is placed before us in terms of order dated 22nd November, 2010. By this Application, essentially three reliefs are claimed by the Applicant/wife. The first is to direct the Respondent/husband to pay amount towards cost awarded by the Trial Court. The second relief is to direct the Respondent/husband to provide for amount of deposit for acquiring premises on leave and license basis and the third relief is to award monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). 2. Insofar as first relief is concerned, it is common ground that the same 2 279.10.sxw is worked out, as the Respondent has already paid cheque in the sum of Rs. 17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred) on 18th September, 2010. 3. Insofar as second relief is concerned, it needs to be noted that on the earlier occasion when the matter came up for hearing before the Bench of which one of us (A.M.Khanwilkar, J.) was a member, the stand taken by the Applicant/wife was that she has made up her mind to permanently shift to Kolhapur for good, along with her minor son. Keeping that stand in mind, we directed the Respondent/husband to pay sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per month to compensate the Applicant in lieu of accommodation to be provided by him to the Applicant at Kolhapur. During the course of argument before us today, Counsel for the Applicant on instructions of the Applicant, who is present in Court, states that she has now decided to come back to Pune. In view of this changed stand of the Applicant, Counsel appearing for the Respondent husband submits that in that case, it is open to the Applicant to occupy the premises which were already made available to her and the same is under the control of the Applicant, as she has kept the same under lock and key. The said premises were offered by the Respondent/husband to the Applicant/wife after taking 3 279.10.sxw it on leave and license basis from his close friend for which he is required to pay monthly license fees. If it is so, there is no question of considering the second relief as claimed. To get over this position, Counsel for the Applicant submits that the accommodation which has been offered by the Respondent is not appropriate. It is not located in proper area and the Applicant apprehends security issues as well. When called upon to state whether the said premises are situated in residential area, it is candidly accepted by the Applicant that the same is situated within residential area. However, it is submitted that the nearby area is used as godowns. We cannot countenance this grievance of the Applicant. If the Applicant is inclined to come back to Pune, she may consider staying in the premises which are already offered to her by the Respondent/husband. In the event, she decides to shift to Pune, she may not be entitled to monthly compensation of Rs.4,000/- which has been provided in terms of our order dated 16th August, 2010 in lieu of accommodation to be provided by the husband to her at Kolhapur. 4. The third relief claimed is to provide monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month. The order dated 16th August, 2010 proceeds on the finding that the Applicant/wife was gainfully 4 279.10.sxw employed during the relevant period. It is, however, now contended that the said finding is incorrect and does not consider the stand taken by the Applicant in Civil Application No.223 of 2009, in particular, Para 6 thereof. We have no hesitation in placing on record that when the matter was argued before the Bench of which one of us (A.M.Khanwilkar, J.) was a member, the argument proceeded on the assumption that the Applicant was gainfully employed during the relevant period. No argument was canvassed before the Bench that the Applicant was later on unemployed as is stated in Paragraph 6 of the said Application. If that argument was to be pressed, the Court would have considered the stand taken by the Respondent in the reply affidavit which is supported by documentary evidence to indicate that the Applicant was in fact, gainfully employed during the relevant period. However, that finding was not invited advisedly by the Applicant. It is not open to now make a grievance that such argument was canvassed before the Court and not considered by the Court. 5. As aforesaid, the order dated 16th August, 2010, which is a speaking order dictated in open Court in the presence of Advocates and the parties, proceeds on the premiss that the Applicant was gainfully employed during the relevant period and also well qualified, and for that reason, it has been 5 279.10.sxw held that she may not be entitled for any interim maintenance. Nevertheless, by way of indulgence, the Court compensated her by providing Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per month in lieu of the accommodation to be provided by the Respondent/husband at Kolhapur. The argument now pressed before us, in our opinion, is an afterthought. 6. There is no substance in this Application. The same is disposed of with observation that the opinion recorded in our order dated 16th August, 2010 or for that matter, this order, will not influence the outcome of the pending Family Court Appeal, which will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. At this stage, Counsel for the Applicant submits that in that case, at least the hearing of the Appeal be expedited. We have no difficulty in accepting this request. However, the same will have to be made before the appropriate Bench where the Family Court Appeal will proceed for hearing. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)