1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3275 OF 2008 Geeta Avadhut Sukhtankar Petitioner vs. Avadhut Shantaram Sukhtankar & anr. Respondents Ms.Sumangala for the petitioner. Mr.Umar S. Shaikh with Ms.Vaishali Sonawane for respondent no.1. Ms.M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 6th August, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent and heard finally at this stage. 3. The petition takes exception to the order dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.5, Mumbai in Misc. Application No.2/2007 preferred for enhancement of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from Rs.3,000/-. 4. In the month of May, 1994 the petitioner and the respondent got married and thereafter it is the case of 2 the petitioner that in the month of September, 1994 the respondent forced her to leave the matrimonial house. The petitioner filed proceeding being Petition No.C-235/1999 under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, "the said Act") for grant of maintenance and the Family Court by its order dated 28.6.2002 granted maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner on 26.12.2006 filed Misc. Application No.2/2007 for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and the said application was rejected by the Family Court by the order which is impugned in the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application for enhancement was made after a period of 4 years from the date of initial order granting maintenance in her favour. She further submitted that in the year 2002 petitioner’s father was alive, who used to help her. Now, her father is no more as he expired in the year 2006. She further submitted that the petitioner is about 45 years old and though she is graduate, because of her advanced age, she is not getting any job. She further submitted that it is difficult for petitioner to maintain herself in the meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. 3 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the respondent is serving as Deputy Manager in JNPT and he gets am amount of Rs.21,641/- towards monthly salary in hand after lawful deduction. He further submits that the respondent has to maintain his old ailing parents. He further submits that inspite of this, the respondent is ready and willing to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs.4000/- from Rs.3,000/-. 7. Taking above facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that the petitioner must get some enhancement in the amount of maintenance granted earlier. The question is, to what extent the enhancement should be granted. The respondent gets approximately an amount of Rs.21,000/- in his hand. In my view, if totality of the circumstances mentioned above are taken into consideration, the enhancement of an amount of Rs.1,000/- will be reasonable. The respondent has fairly shown his willingness for enhancement, to the extent of Rs.1000/- per month. 8. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER (i) The respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner 4 an amount of Rs.1000/- towards enhancement i.e. total amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of application made by the petitioner in the Family Court. (ii) The impugned order is accordingly modified to that extent. (iii) The arrears of maintenance shall be paid within a period of three months from today. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]