1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 123 OF 2004 Smt. Pallavi Nandkumar Khanolkar ..Appellant Vs. Nandkumar B. Khanolkar ..Respondent Mr. C.H. Gangan for appellant. Mr. Kantilal Kanojia and Mayur Sonawane i/by P.N. Patwardhan for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. July 17, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 arises from the Judgment and Decree dated 30/6/2004 passed by the Family Court at Mumbai. By the said judgment Petition No.A-869 of 1996 filed by the present respondent was allowed by dissolving the marriage between the parties and granting a decree of divorce. The Family Court further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor son by name Nikhil. The appellant – wife challenged the judgment to a limited extent of the maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court for the son. 2. The parties were married on 1/6/1993 and they begot son – Nikhil on 2 27/4/1994. The son has just finished his 10th standard and proposing to join three years Diploma Course in Computer Engineering as was revealed during our meeting with Nikhil in the Chamber. The respondent, after the decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court is remarried. The appellant is employed as a Clerk in a private aided school (run by the Indian Education Society, Mumbai). The respondent is employed as Senior Record Keeper with the State Bank of India (Mumai Main Branch) and his gross salary for the month of March, 2009 was Rs. 24,508/-, whereas the gross salary of the appellant – wife for the month of December, 2008 was Rs.13,924/-. 3. When the Family Court fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs.1500/- per month, it had noted that the wife was in receipt of monthly salary of Rs.6000/- and the respondent was drawing a gross salary of Rs.12000/-. It appears that the Family Court was impressed by the monthly deductions made from the salary of the respondent which amount was at Rs.11000/-. It is well settled that while fixing the maintenance amount to be paid to the child only the statutory deductions like income tax, professional tax etc. are required to be taken into consideration. If the respondent borrowed loan from the Credit Co-operative Society and the loan installment is required to be deducted from the monthly salary, such a deduction cannot be taken into consideration while fixing the maintenance amount. When the impugned order was passed, Nikhil was about 10 years of age and was a school going child. In her additional affidavit presented before us, the appellant has set out the approximate figure of yearly expenses on Nikhil’s upbringing, including the expenses for his school education. The amount of maintenance fixed at Rs.1500/- per month, in our considered opinion, is to inadequate and that too when the appellant is staying with her parents. 3 4. We, therefore, allow this appeal partly and fix the amount of maintenance for the son – Nikhil at Rs.3000/- per month from the date of the impugned order till 31/7/2009. We further direct that from 1/8/2009 the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.5000/- per month for Nikhil’s maintenance and shall also bear the other expenses like college fees/donation etc. As and when the college fees/donation are required to be paid by Nikhil, he will approach the respondent and give him the details of fees/donation etc. and the respondent shall pay the said amount within two weeks from such intimation to Nikhil and it will be necessary for Nikhil, in turn, to hand over the receipts to the respondent. Arrears of maintenance shall be paid within a period of three months from today and the said amount shall be remitted to Account No. 11058 with the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited, Jogeshwari (E) Branch, Mumbai. Parties to bear their own costs. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)