:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 261 OF 2007 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2007 Geetanjali Umesh Patil ..Appellant Vs. Umesh Patil ..Respondent Mrs. Anjali Helekar for appellant. Mrs. Teja Katdare for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : January 12, 2009. Date : January 12, 2009. Date : January 12, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs. Helekar the learned counsel for the appellant-wife. Mrs. Katdare appears for the respondent-wife. 2. Petition No. A-2036 of 2004 was filed by the respondent-husband praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, :2: 1955, whereas Petition No.E-140 of 2004 was filed by the appellant-wife praying for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court at Mumbai. By a common judgment dated 20/4/2007 the Family Court was pleased to decree Petition No.A-2036 of 2004 and the marriage between the parties solemnised on 26/5/2003 came to be dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition filed by the wife came to be partly allowed by directing the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- per month to the wife by way of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. In our order dated 1/8/2008 we have noted that the only grievance raised by the appellant was pertaining to the amount of maintenance and, therefore, in this appeal the said limited issue we are required to examine. 4. It was alleged by the wife that the husband was getting monthly salary of Rs.5000/- and over and above the said amount he was receiving agricultural income from the family profit. On the other hand the :3: husband contended that initially he was getting salary of Rs.4100/- per month but he lost the same job and in the new job he was getting Rs.2500/- per month. It was alleged by the husband that the wife was working and was earning Rs.6000/- per month. The wife stated in her depositions before the Family Court that initially she was earning Rs.2500/- but on her marriage she discontinued the job and remained unemployed. The Family Court, therefore, accepted these contentions of the respective parties and held that the wife was unemployed and was without any income, whereas the husband was earning a salary of Rs.2500/- per month and on that basis the learned Judge of the Family Court fixed the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month. 5. We have been informed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court the wife obtained M.Sc. (Chemistry) degree, whereas the husband holds a B.Sc. degree. It is not the case of the wife that the husband is not required to support other family members and even otherwise the amount of Rs.1000/- per month fixed by way of maintenance does :4: not appear to be erroneous on the basis of monthly income of the husband at Rs.2500/-. We are informed that the wife continues to be unemployed. Even if that be so, her chances of getting a job are better than the husband. We are, therefore, satisfied that the reasoning set out by the Family Court in fixing the amount of Rs.1000/- by way of monthly maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. does not require any reconsideration and hence this appeal for the said limited relief must fail at the threshold. 6. The appeal is hereby dismissed. We make it clear that the husband shall go on paying the said maintenance amount on or before 15th of every month. 7. Civil Application Nos.261 and 262 of 2007 do not survive and same shall stand disposed off. (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)