1 CAM.169-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2010 Mr. Rajnikant Maneklal Dhokia .. Applicant Vs. Mrs. Deena Rajnikant Dhokia .. Respondent. --- Mr. A.M. Vernekar i/b Girish P. Thakur, for the Applicant. Mr. Sajan Oomen, for the Respondent. --- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. NOVEMBER 15, 2010. P.C. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2] The applicant and respondent have married on 2.7.1988 and the couple has a daughter by name, Toral who is born on 19.5.1989. The applicant had filed Petition No.A-1961 of 1990 in the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and it came to be dismissed three years later. 2 CAM.169-2010 On 14.12.1993 the applicant had filed Petition No. A-1973 of 1993 for divorce on the ground of desertion. While the said petition was pending, the respondent-wife filed M.J. Petition No. C-62 of 1997 claiming maintenance under Section 18(2)(b) of the Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act, 1956 (the Act for short). The petition filed for divorce on the ground of desertion came to be withdrawn by the applicant and the petition for maintenance came to be decided on 5.1.2007 on the basis of consent terms. The husband agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- per month to wife and Rs.1000/- per month to the daughter by way of permanent maintenance. 3] About one and half years latter, Misc. Application No.150 of 2008 came to be filed by the respondent-wife under Section 25 of the Act for enhancement of the maintenance, and the same has been allowed by the Family Court by it’s order dated 13.4.2010. The maintenance amount has been fixed at Rs.4000/- per month for respondent-wife and Rs.5000/- per month for the daughter from the date of said Order. 3 CAM.169-2010 4] The said Order dated 13.4.2010 is subject matter of challenge in FCA No.82 of 2010 which has been admitted. By this application, the appellant-husband has prayed for stay to the Order dated 13.4.2010. 5] It has also been pointed out that the applicant has filed Petition No.A-1855 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights and we are informed that it is pending before the Family Court. The fact that the matrimonial relationship between the parties as husband and wife has not been severe d and even if the application under section 18 of the said Act was decided by consent, it cannot be, at least at this stage, held that subsequent application under Section 25 of the Act for enhancement of maintenance was not maintainable. 6] According to the respondent-wife, she has been staying away from the applicant for the last about twenty years on account of the reasons which have been forced upon her by the applicant-husband. There is no dispute that the applicant is working with the Bank of India for the last more than twenty years. Despite that, the applicant did not place this fact before the Family Court nor did he produce the documents indicating his monthly emoluments. The daughter is studying medicine. The respondent- 4 CAM.169-2010 wife and daughter are staying in the house which has not been provided by the applicant, but the said residence is provided by the father of the wife. We have also gone through the oral depositions. 7] We are not inclined to allow this application as we do not find the maintenance at the enhanced rate as exorbitant or disproportionate looking to the income of the applicant or the needs of the respondent-wife and the daughter. Hence, the stay application stands rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)