1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.802 OF 2009. IN FIRST APPEAL NO.466 OF 2007. APPLICANT : (Respondent in F.A.) [On R.A.] Sunil S/o Chandrabhan Mate, aged about 36 years, resident of Bhusawal Chowk, Near Mata Temple, Khamgaon, Taluka Khamgaon, Disttt. Buldhana. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: (Appellants 1 & 2 in FA No.466/07( [On R.A.] 1 Savita Sunil Mate, aged about 31 years, Occupation-Household, 2 Vaishnavi d/o Sunil Mate, aged about 5 years, Occupation-Nil, minor through guardian mother, the Original Appellant No.1. Both R/o C/o Ramdas Mahadeorao Devikar House No.19, Vidya Nagar, Manewada Ring Road, Nagpur. Shri A. V. Bhide, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for respondents. CORAM: A. H. JOSHI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: 4th MARCH 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. H. Joshi, J) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2 2. The Judgment and order passed in Case No.A-395 of 2006 Exh.16 was under challenge in the First Appeal No.466 of 2007. 3. This Court has allowed the appeal and enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs.1000/- to Rs.3000/- by the judgment and order dated 27-11-2008. 4. The said order is sought to be reviewed by the present application. 5. Serious exception is taken to the discussion contained in the judgment which is at page 7 of the paper book of this MCA which reads as follows :- “In our opinion, no evidence is necessary for establishing the fact that in a city like Nagpur nobody can survive having Rs.1,000/- p.m. In the pocket. In our opinion considering that Vaishnavi is a growing child, in a big city Rs.1,000/- is too inadequate for the present. Considering that she has not yet started going to school, in our opinion, awarding maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- p.m., would be adequate. However, it goes without saying that as she grows her needs would be growing; she will be going to school in future and therefore, in our opinion, liberty will have to be granted to respondent no.2 Vaishnavi to apply for enhancement in the rate of maintenance as and when the occasion arises. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice.” 6. The grounds of challenge as argued are summarised as below:- (i) The order modifying enhancement from Rs.1000/- to Rs.3000/- does not contain any discussion and reasons. (ii) While modifying the order under appeal, this Court 3 has failed to advert to and discuss the evidence. (iii) Reliance is placed on (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 497, Jagdish Singh Vs. Madhuri Devi by Mr. A. V. Bhide, Advocate. 7. The petition is opposed on following grounds :- (a) For enabling any Court to arrive at a conclusion that considering the dearer costs of life, an amount of Rs.1000/- is thoroughly inadequate, great length and breadth of discussion is not required. (b) For such a conclusion, vast evidence is not required, and naturally discussion on evidence too is not required. (c) No evidence was brought by the husband to prove his incapacity to defray a sum of Rs.3000/- per month towards maintenance of the child. 8. This Court, upon examination of record tendered with this MCA, finds that even before us, it is not shown, nor it is argued that the applicant does not have means or capacity to pay Rs.3000/- per month. Point of emphasis is a question of law namely as to adequacy of reasons and absence of discussion on evidence. 9. On analysis of the relevant part of the text of the judgment quoted in para 5 above, we find that the limited question for consideration in the first appeal was as to the adequacy of maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- for survival of the child. 4 10. Had the enhancement been challenged on the ground of incapacity to pay on account of lack of resources etc. then some additional discussion and reasons may have become necessary which is not the fact of matter as to the points argued. 11. The reasoning adopted and recorded by this Court in the said judgment to the effect that, “amount of Rs.1000/- is too inadequate amount of maintenance for growing child” is undoubtedly adequate reason for grant of enhancement. 12. Reasoning adopted by this Court cannot be regarded as “subjective” . Whenever the reasoning, however, brief is based on objective matter distinct from subjectivity, such reason is adequate due to its quality. 13. In this situation, we find that in the impugned judgment, there is no error apparent on the face of record. 14. No interference is called for. Rule is discharged with costs. JUDGE JUDGE //MULEY//