1 fca.120.04 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2004 Sou. Sangita Bhalchandra More and anr. ... APPELLANTS Vs. Bhalchandra Shantaram More. ... RESPONDENT -------- Mr. Mahesh Rawool i/b Mr. P.B. Shah for the Appellants. Mr. Suhasini Mutalik for the Respondent. -------- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 12 th July, 2010. P.C. 1 This is an appeal filed by the Appellant-wife for enhancement of the maintenance amount. She impugns the judgment and order dated 23 rd December, 2002 of the Family Court. 2 The Appellant-wife had filed the petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 2 fca.120.04 3,000/- per month for minor daughter Apurva. In the evidence, however, she has deposed thus- “I require atleast two thousand per month for the maintenance of my daughter Apurva. I require atleast three thousand per month for my maintenance”. The Family Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 23 rd December, 2002 has granted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the Appellant-wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the daughter Apurva as maintenance. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order reads thus: “ ORDER 1. The respondent Mr. Bhalchandra Shantaram More is ordered to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 wife Sau. Sangita Bhalchandra More U/s. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and Rs.2000/- per month to the Petitioner No.2 daughter Apurva U/s. 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act from the date of petition i.e. 11.1.2002. The arrears of maintenance in pursuance of this order should be paid within a period within a period of two months. 2. The respondent Mr. Bhalchandra should also pay Rs.2000/- to the Petitioners towards the costs of this proceedings.” 3 We find that really speaking the Appellant-wife cannot be 3 fca.120.04 said to have been aggrieved by the impugned order, inasmuch as in her evidence she herself has stated the amount which was required by her and her minor daughter towards maintenance, which aggregated to a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and the Family Court has granted the same amount towards maintenance. We therefore, see no merits in this appeal and dismiss the same. 4 The Respondent-husband, who is present in Court however, in all fairness in the presence of his counsel, stated that notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal, he is ready and willing to pay an aggregate amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife and daughter, as originally claimed by the Appellant-wife in the petition from the date of this order. We appreciate the gesture of the Respondent-husband and accept the assurance given by him. 5 The appeal is disposed of accordingly. [ A.A. SAYED, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]