abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2004 Hanumant K. Kakade .. Appellant V/s 1. Sau. Suman Hanumant Kakade 2. Kumari Monika Hanumant Kakade .. Respondents Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for the applicant. Ms.Gunjan Shah i/b Mr.S.A. Sawant for the respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: (Per B.H. Marlapalle, J.) 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 5th February 2002 passed by the Family Court at Pune. The respondent wife for herself and daughter Monika had filed Petition No.C-112 of 1998 for maintenance under sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. By the said order, the appellant was ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife from 1st December 2000 and in - 2 - addition amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the daughter since 1st December 2000 till her marriage or till she became capable to maintain herself from her own earnings. 2. As per the appellant, the petition for maintenance was allowed by the Family Court by the impugned judgment solely on the ground that his petition for divorce was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Satara and as of now, the decree of divorce having been granted by the District Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 2001, the appellant is not required to pay any maintenance. It is further submitted that the decree of divorce granted by the District Court on 2nd April 2005 by allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 2001 has not been challenged by the respondent wife during the last about 4 years. He further submitted that respondent no.2 daughter is already married. 3. It is noted that in Civil Application No.201 of 2002, this Court passed an order on 12th January 2004 and while staying the order of maintenance under challenge in F.C.A. No.14 of 2004 directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the daughter from 1st December 2000 with liberty to him to apply for modification if the daughter - 3 - got married subsequently. The daughter is married on 26th December 2005. 4. If the marriage between the parties has been dissolved in terms of the decree passed by the District Court and the said decree has not been challenged by the respondent wife, the husband is right in contending that he is not required to pay any maintenance on the ground that the marriage subsisted and it is clear from the impugned order passed by the Family Court that the maintenance was directed to be paid because the divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Satara. On this limited ground, this appeal succeeds but without prejudice to the rights of the respondent wife to initiate appropriate proceedings for permanent alimony if she desires. In this appeal, she has not filed any cross claim even after the marriage was dissolved by the District Court. 5. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the respondent wife is not entitled to maintenance in terms of the impugned order with effect from April 2005 and the daughter is not entitled for maintenance from the date she was married, i.e. from 26th December 2005. However, the amount already - 4 - paid, if any, for the period from April 2005 shall not be recovered from the wife. 6. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the wife to claim permanent alimony before the competent court and if such proceedings are filed or pending, the same shall be decided on their own merits and without being influenced by this order. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)