SSP CAM 218 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.218 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.126 OF 2009 Jitendra D. Kacha .....Applicant versus Mamta Jitendra Kacha ..... Respondent Ms.Sonia Miskin, for the applicant. Ms.P.M.Bhansali i/by Mr.Vikrant K. Narkar, for the respondent. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATE: 22 nd SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. It is very unfortunate that the applicant-husband is filing one after another civil applications for modification of the order dated 16-09-2009. By the said order, this Court granted maintenance in all at the rate of `6,000/- p.m. in favour of the child and the respondent-wife. The above order came to be passed as back as on 16-09-2009 in Civil Application No.181 of 2009. It is unfortunate that the said order was not complied with by the applicant-husband, as the applicant-husband went on depositing the maintenance amount of `1,500/- as per the order of the Family Court and the order of this Court was flouted by the applicant. It SSP CAM 218 of 2011 is required to be noted that when the respondent-wife filed a Contempt Petition against the applicant, in the year 2011 a Civil Application No.186 of 2011 was filed by the applicant-husband for modification /recalling of the said order, by which the applicant was directed to pay `6,000/- per month jointly in favour of the respondent-wife and the child. We have rejected the Civil Application No.186 of 2011 by our order dated 26-08-2011. 2. Thereafter, the present civil application has been filed by the Advocate on the ground that the Advocate of the applicant was not present on that day. However, on merits we had passed the order in Civil Application No.186 of 2011 by rejecting the said application for modification of the order. Learned counsel for the applicant who is present today, submits that on the relevant day, her appearance was not properly shown and therefore, today she may be heard on merits. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and her only argument is that the amount of `6,000/- may be reduced suitably. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife pointed out that she is required to spend considerable amount towards the education of the minor child. 3. In our view, by a detailed order dated 16-09-2009, we have enhanced the amount of maintenance of `6,000/- from `1,500/-. It is pertinent to note that the applicant-husband flouted the said order for a SSP CAM 218 of 2011 considerable time and when other side took out contempt proceedings in the year 2010, that for the first time the Civil Application No.186 of 2011 was filed for recalling the order which was earlier passed in Civil Application No.181 of 2009. The applicant-husband infact continued to flout the order and has shown least regard to the order of this Court. If the applicant has any genuine grievance, he could have approached immediately after the said order was passed. The above application is filed after considerable time since passing of the first order and that too when other side initiated Contempt Proceedings. We accordingly do not find any substance in the above civil application, which is accordingly rejected with a costs of `2,000/-, to be paid by the applicant-husband to the respondent-wife within a period of one week from today. ( RANJIT MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )