1 CAM329-330.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 329 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2008 Shri Nimraj Pandharinath Vispute ... Applicant v/s Sou.Hemlata Nimraj Vispute ... Respondent ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 330 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2008 Sou.Hemlata Nimraj Vispute ... Applicant v/s Shri Nimraj Pandharinath Vispute ... Respondent Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for the applicant in C.A.No.330 of 2010 and respondent in C.A.No.329 of 2010. Mr.J.S.Kapre for the respondent in C.A.No.330 of 2010 and applicant in C.A.No.329 of 2010. CORAM: A. M. KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ. DATED: 20TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.: 1. The first appeal filed by the wife is admitted on 2 CAM329-330.10 25.6.2009. By separate order passed on the same date in Civil Application No.226 of 2008, the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- per month towards maintenance to the wife by way of interim maintenance in addition to the rental compensation received by the wife due to letting out Flat No.12 in Preetam Apartment, Kothrud, Pune. The order records that at the relevant time the rent in respect of the said flat was around Rs.4000/- per month. In other words, in aggregate, the husband has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife towards monthly maintenance by way of interim arrangement. 2. The wife has now filed an application being Civil Application No.330 of 2010 praying for a direction to the Director of Sugar and the Registrar, Co-operative Society of Maharashtra State, Pune to deduct the amount of maintenance from the salary of the respondent and to pay the same to the wife. Further relief is claimed that the property Row House Nos.15A (old 12A) and 15B (old 12B) situated at Survey No.148/1A/1/2, Swami Samartha Co-operative Housing Society be attached and Court Receiver be appointed to auction the said property so that the sale proceeds can be adjusted towards the arrears of maintenance to be paid by the husband which according to the wife is to the tune of Rs.2,53,483/-. 3 CAM329-330.10 3. The husband has filed separate civil application bearing No.329 of 2010 praying for vacating the order dated 4.1.2010, whereby the wife was permitted to renew the leave and license agreement in respect of the above mentioned flat. Further relief is claimed by the husband that he be permitted to let out the said flat and deposit the entire rent/license fee received by him in this Court. It is also prayed that the order dated 6.8.2008 passed in Civil Application No.187 of 2008 be modified to the extent that the husband be allowed to sell and dispose of the flat situated at Runwal Regency or Preetam Apartment. In addition, it is stated that the wife be directed to hand over the original documents and all concerned papers in respect of the immovable properties, deposits and Insurance policy as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the application. 4. At the outset, we may record that the counsel appearing for the husband has stated on instructions that the husband is not pressing relief claimed in terms of prayer clause 15(a) of the Civil Application No.329 of 2010 for vacating the order dated 4.1.2010 passed in Civil Application No.252 of 2009. In that sense, the arrangement ordered in terms of order dated 25.6.2009 in Civil Application No.226 of 2008 by way of an interim arrangement will have to prevail. 4 CAM329-330.10 5. Before we examine the relief claimed by the husband, it would be appropriate to first deal with the claim regarding arrears of maintenance amount claimed by the wife. According to her, the husband is in arrears since April, 2005 till May, 2011 in an aggregate amount of Rs.2,53,483/-. According to the husband, however, the claim of the wife regarding arrears of maintenance referred to in Annexure-R is incorrect. At the same time, the husband has not challenged the break up in terms of clauses (a) and (b) in Annexure-R at page 76 in the application filed by the wife in Civil Application No.330 of 2010. According to the husband, there is no order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction requiring the husband to pay amount referred to in clause (c) of Annexure-III i.e. Rs.57,000/-. To that extent we may agree with the argument of the husband. Even then the total liability of the husband was still around Rs. 2,30,000/-. Out of the said amount, he has already paid a sum of Rs.94,500/- as per Annexure-R furnished by the wife in Civil Application No.330 of 2010. In addition to the said amount, the husband has paid further amount of Rs.50,000/- which is deposited in this Court on 10.3.2011. It is possible that the wife has no intimation in that behalf. The wife is entitled to withdraw the said amount from the Registry, if so advised. 5 CAM329-330.10 6. Thus, the liability of the husband as per Annexure-R will be only around Rs.86,000/-. As against this liability, the husband is inclined to surrender the L.I.C. Policy which is in the name of wife which will fetch an amount of Rs.1,13,000/-. However, we cannot permit the husband to surrender any Fixed Deposits or L.I.C. Policy or any other investment already made in the name of wife. Instead, the husband will have to make necessary arrangement to deposit a sum of Rs. 86,000/- in this Court as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than six weeks from today, failing which we will accede to the request of the wife to attach half salary of the husband, which amount will have to be directly deducted by the employer of the husband for being made over to the wife. Such deduction will have to continue till sum of Rs. 86,000/- is recovered from the husband. In addition, the husband would be liable to pay monthly maintenance amount of Rs.6000/- on regular basis on or before 10th of every English month directly in the bank account of the wife bearing Account No.004204201230201 in Cosmos Co- operative Bank, Kothrud Branch, Pune. Even in case of one default, the Court may consider the request of the wife to pass further reliefs as may be necessary including the relief of attachment of immovable properties standing in the name of the husband. 6 CAM329-330.10 7. The application filed by the wife will stand disposed of in above terms with liberty to the wife to ask for similar and further reliefs by way of fresh application if and when an occasion arises. 8. Insofar as the application filed by the husband, to allow him to let out the above mentioned premises as well as the alternative relief claimed to allow him to sell or dispose of the said flat in Preetam Apartment, deserves to be rejected and need not be considered for the time being as the above arrangement is already ordered. 9. We may also place on record that even if the relief as claimed by the husband were to be considered, the Court may have to issue notice to the employer of the husband, as we are informed that some criminal case pertaining to accepting bribe amount is already pending against the husband. 10. Thus, application filed by the husband is also disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 7 CAM329-330.10