1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.69 of 2008 In Family Court Appeal No.36 of 2008 Jeenal Arpan Doshi Applicant Vs. Arpan Bhupendra Doshi Respondent Mr.Prakash Nichani with Mr.Dilip Shukla i/b. M/s. P.V. Nichani & Co. for applicant. Mr.Sachin Shetye for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. July 15, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. This is an application taken out by the applicant - wife in her pending appeal and she prays for enhancement of interim maintenance to Rs.10,000/-. The respondent - husband has filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed this application. As per him the order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month in M.J.Petition No.964 of 2005 was conditional one viz. if he fails to resume cohabitation with the wife and, therefore, there is no reason to enhance the said amount to anything beyond Rs.5000/-. He has also disputed the wife’s claim about his monthly income. The applicant wife has 2 filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and has pointed out that there are three family partnership firms wherein the husband’s father has shares viz. Indian Tubes & Valves Co. (40 per cent share of the father), M/s.Regal Trading Company (60 per cent share of the mother) and B.M.Doshi (HUF). As per the wife the declared income of the partnership firms exceeds Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) per annum. The respondent husband owns his own car and the family has two cars. She also states that the respondent - husband is the only son of his parents and his mother is no more. 2. We have noted that the wife had filed M.J.Petition No.964 of 2005 seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was allowed as per the judgment and order dated 4/12/2007. Undoubtedly the said judgment is under challenge in Family Court Appeal No.43 of 2008 filed by the husband but the fact remains that when the wife, after obtaining the decree, expressed her desire to resume cohabitation with the husband, he did not allow her and as of now the parties are staying separately. The wife is staying with her parents and she has come out with the case that an amount of 3 Rs.5000/- presently she is in receipt of is too inadequate and in any case the husband has the financial capacity to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month which should be adequate to meet her monthly expenses. 3. There is no dispute that before the Family Court when the proceedings were pending, the wife was getting an interim maintenance of Rs.9000/- per month and we do not see any reason as to why her prayer for enhancement of the interim maintenance amount to Rs.9000/- per month should not be allowed and we are satisfied that fixing the interim maintenance during the pendency of the Appeals by the respective parties before this Court at Rs.9000/- per month would meet the ends of justice. 4. Hence we allow the application partly and enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.5000/- to Rs.9000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) per month with effect from 1st July 2008. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)