1 ndm 20-cam201.09 anr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2009 Tejus Kanubhai Maun. ... APPLICANT Vs. Kanta Tejus Maun. ... RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 245 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2009 Kanta Tejas Maun. ... APPLICANT Vs. Tejus Kanubhai Maun. ... RESPONDENT -------- Mr. R.T. Lalwani for the Applicant - husband. Mr. A.V. Chatuphale for the Respondent - wife. -------- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 07 th July, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 2 The first application being Civil Application No. 201 of 2009 has been filed by the husband for stay of the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court. Whereas the latter application being Civil Application No. 245 of 2009 has been filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance amount during the pendency of the appeal. 3 It is noticed that when the proceedings were pending before the Family Court, the wife took out application Exhibit – 11 for interim maintenance. By that application, the wife prayed for the same relief of maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.30,000/- per month. That claim of the wife was considered at length by the Family Court by a detailed judgment running into 18 pages. The Family Court has rejected the claim on the finding that the wife is a well qualified lady, she was practicing as a doctor and that she was capable of maintaining herself. When the matter proceeded for final hearing, the Family Court once again addressed itself to the issue of maintenance while dealing with the issue No.4. Once again the Family Court has adverted to all aspects of the matter and eventually concluded that at best the wife would be entitled for maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month in the fact situation of the present case. Indeed, the said decision of the Family Court is subject matter of the appeal before us. During the pendency of the appeal, the wife has once again asked for the same interim relief, which was considered by the trial Court and rejected. The wife in the present application claims that the amount be enhanced upto Rs.30,000/- 3 per month, which was the relief claimed by her before the Family Court. In the final decision, the Family Court vide the judgment and order dated 31 st March, 2009 has considered that claim and limited the claim of maintenance only upto Rs.3,000/-. If the wife’s contention of enhancing the maintenance amount at this interim stage were to be accepted, it would result in allowing the appeal of the wife at interlocutory stage itself. Besides, we find force in the argument of the husband that the reasons, which weighed with the Family Court while considering the prayer for interim maintenance during the pendency of the main petition, are germane and cannot be overlooked while examining the claim of the wife for enhancement of the maintenance amount. In that, the wife is a well qualified person, she indeed was practicing as a doctor. Even in the affidavit filed before us, it is conceded that she was gainfully employed during the period stated in the affidavit. All these facts, leave no manner of doubt that the wife is in a position to maintain herself. Besides, the wife possesses properties and investments to which the Family Court has alluded to in its decision. Considering all these aspects at this stage of the proceedings, we are not inclined to accept the claim of the wife for enhancement of the interim maintenance amount during the pendency of the appeal. Hence her application should fail. 4 At the same time, since the trial Court has recorded the reasons for limiting the maintenance amount to Rs.3,000/- per month to be paid to the wife, we have no hesitation in taking a view that even if the 4 appeal preferred by the husband against the decree passed by the Family Court is pending consideration of this Court having been admitted. That does not necessarily mean that the husband would be entitled for relief of stay of order of monthly maintenance during the pendency of this proceedings. Accordingly, even the application preferred by the Applicant deserves to be dismissed. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, both these applications are rejected. No order as to costs. [ A.A. SAYED, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]