1 fca73 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2010 Swati Vandesh Pardhi. ... ... Appellant. Versus Vandesh Soma Pardhi. ... ... Respondent. Mr. P. r. Moses for the Appellant. Mr. Parvez Ubharay for Respondent. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 18TH AUGUST, 2010. P. C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Parvez Ubharay, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives notice for final disposal of the appeal. 3. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai dated 18th May, 2007 in Petition No. C 27 of 2000. The said petition was filed by the appellant wife for maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. The Court below considered the common evidence adduced by the parties in respect of the petition for maintenance as well as petition for divorce and on analysing the same has found that the appellant 2 fca73 was able bodied person and was qualified to operate stitching and overlock machine. Besides, there was evidence that she at the relevant time was working in a garment factory, namely, Embassy Apparel at Wadala, Mumbai. The Court assumed that she must be earning at least Rs.2000/- per month. On the other hand, considering the income of the husband, which was around Rs.6,000/- per month and net salary of Rs.3,500/- per month, the permanent alimony has been determined at Rs.500/- per month from the date of the order dated 18th May, 2007. This order is the subject matter of this appeal before us. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant criticised the approach of the lower court on more than one count. According to him the inference drawn by the lower Court that the appellant was in fact in employment and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month is inappropriate. Besides, on the same evidence and circumstances when the application for interim maintenance was considered by the Family Court, the Court awarded amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards the interim maintenance during pendency of the petition. No tangible reason has been assigned in the impugned decision as to why the said amount has now been substituted to only Rs.500/- per month. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand has supported the conclusion reached by the lower Court. According to him, the amount of Rs.500/- per month determined by the trial Court 3 fca73 towards monthly maintenance is just and reasonable being in the nature of permanent alimony. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties for some time, in deference to the observations made by us during hearing, the respondent has agreed for the arrangement which we propose to record in this order. He has agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month towards the permanent monthly alimony to the appellant wife. That, however, will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant to apply for enhancement of the amount. If such an application is filed by the appellant wife, it will have to be considered on its own merit in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned decision or in this order. 6. In view of the arrangement agreed upon between the parties, the appeal stands disposed of. 7. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the claim regarding return of ornaments which is not subject matter of the petition filed by the appellant wife. Any question in relation to the said claim will have to be considered in appropriate proceeding on its own merits. Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)